Why is it deemed wrong to "bash religion"?

To be fair, I think the religious do the above (claim evidence, special or otherwise) because they feel that if they said "I take this on blind faith" they'd get 'bashed' by atheists, and again fairly, I think they probably would. That does then beg the question as to why they post their stance at all. To that can be said the scriptural demand to proselytise: the tenets of the two major Abrahamic faiths demand that they spread the word (which is actually not allowed on here for the very reason that it's not empirically supportable and results in bashing and flame-warring). In a way, they're in a bind. They're obligated to the act, but can't do so without incurring a certain amount of wrath from rationalists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's pretty clear that it does, leo. (See Grumpy above.)

Keep in mind here: you're asking us to recreate life in the narrow hundred-fifty year interval since the foundation of biological naturalism. How about a little 'faith' while we figure the rest of this out, friend? We're not actually doing it to fuck with you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i'll agree that it's perfectly logical to assume it does.
logic can definitely lead to the wrong conclusions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You've claimed to be a Buddhist. So you would seem to be happy participating in something that you're simultaneously dismissing as "fucking stupid".

Sure there is. 'Faith' just means confidence and trust. You have faith every time you take a step that the "law" of gravity hasn't suddenly been repealed. The place where philosophical reasoning comes into play is when we begin inquiring into what justifies a particular item of faith, when we start asking what reason there is to believe it.

If people want to condemn something, and especially if they want to pose as the intellectually superior ones while they are doing it, then they will need to have some understanding of the thing they are condemning and some sound and persuasive justification for saying what they say.

That's true whether it's a Christian fundamentalist condemning 'Darwinism', or an atheist fundamentalist condemning "religion".

 

We come from everything!

 

leopold

Don't assume that all assumptions are wrong, an assumption based on logic applied to facts is more likely to be accurate than an assumption based on logic applied to beliefs. If you believe that Aliens are visiting Earth, you logically assume some UFOs are those aliens. You would be completely and utterly wrong.

We ASSUME the Universe is as it appears to be. We ASSUME that man is capable of understanding said Universe. We have quite a bit of solid, repeatable evidence that these assumptions are true because we used those assumptions to go out and actually find out, constantly testing those assumptions against reality.

You ASSUME that there is a god(whether you admit that to be an assumption or not, or what claims you make). You ASSUME that you(or others)know the first thing about that god, what he wants, who he hates. You have nothing but hearsay to back up those assumptions, mostly ancient hearsay from men nearly totally ignorant of the reality of the Universe.

These two sets of assumption are not equally valid. Logic based on the first set gave us the modern world(the knowledge to make it, if not the wisdom to live in it). Logic based on the second set gave us the Spanish Inquisition and countless "Holy wars"(an oxymoronic concept), prejudice, repression and pogroms. And abysmal ignorance of reality. What appears to be logical to the ignorant rarely is.

So, who is making the wrong assumptions? Who actually reaches the wrong conclusions?

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Technically, a 'belief' is a mental state, with a proposition as its content, in which the truth of that proposition is affirmed.

There's nothing wrong with belief and beliefs aren't necessarily irrational. Knowledge is a subset of belief, consisting of those beliefs that are both suitably justified and actually true. The content of scientific thought consists of scientists' beliefs about the universe and about their own ways of understanding it.

Reason makes its appearance when we start inquiring into the justification for various beliefs and into how various beliefs are logically related.

 

I was interested in the meditation and philosophical aspects of Zen Buddhism, I never followed the religion. Faith in Buddha or enlightenment is just as misguided as faith in anything. Buddha knew religion was a con game. And no, faith doesn't just mean trust, that's an equivocation fallacy. If reason entered into it, it wouldn't be faith, it would be a belief substantiated by reason.

More to the point, I don't need any justification at all to dismiss something that itself isn't justified. I think this is the essence of this thread, religion demands that we consider it valid until we can disprove it. But the burden of proof is not on the atheist or skeptic, it's on the believer.

 

Great post!

 

evidence please or retract this statement.

 

No, usually the atheist in question has already argued that a god does not exist, thereby demonstrating the assertion made about them.

Just because the religious see their beliefs are inherently authoritative is no justification for trying to misapply criteria between disparate fields of study. The first is at least honest, though you may not agree, while the second is intellectually dishonest. It is like trying to apply physics to philosophy, when physics has nothing significant to say about the field of philosophy.

Since when does philosophy make claims about gravity?! Again, you seem to accept philosophy of the gaps when god of the gaps to dismissed out of hand. There is a reason there is no generally accepted philosophy. It is because the field is as contentious as religion.

No, philosophy, as well as religion, is in the general field of the humanities. As such, they both tend to be highly subjective. The humanities utilize methods that are critical, speculative, and/or historical, as opposed to the empirical method of natural science.

If you do not understand this distinction, then you are unlikely to realize why you cannot justify misapplying these methods.

 

You have only verified the hasty generalization.

Straw man arguments:

• These groups do not exist
• You identify with them

You do know what a hasty generalization is, right?

 

How does this apply to religion? How does this make religion rational? In the example you created, it is a knowledge difference which creates the differing beliefs. Even the most educated theologian doesn’t have enough evidence or knowledge to lead him or her to rationally conclude the existence of godhead. That is why their arguments always rely on faith rather than evidence and rational thought.

No

 

Religion is often very rational. Just look at all the philosophy spun out by the various religious traditions.

The thing is, reason needs to have raw material that it chews on, that it addresses. That's true everywhere, I guess, whether in religion or in science.

I think that most of the more developed major religions think that reason is fine and necessary, but also think that reason isn't what gets a person saved, wins them enlightenment, or gets them into a proper relationship with God. That's more a matter of direct personal experience, or of some kind of emotional and motivational reorientation. Some strands of religious tradition teach that true experience of the transcendent exceeds all words and concepts, and can't be cognized in the same way that mundane matters are.

My experience has been that religious and non-religous people don't usually differ a whole lot as to native rationality. There's highly-rational and less-rational people in both groups.

It's certainly something that people can be rational about. There's the philosophy of religion, historical, descriptive, comparative and exegetical studies of religion, and all kinds of academic activity with religion as its content. There are countless doctoral programs in religion out there.

It's obviously bashing when it's rude and insulting. Especially if it's intentionally and calculatedly so.

I'd also be inclined to call criticism of religion (or anything else for that matter) 'bashing' when it's excessively stupid and heavy-handed, when it's naive, simplistic or poorly-informed about what it's dismissing.

There's kind of a sliding scale I guess, with intelligent, well-informed and well-argued scepticism on one end, and crude caricature on the other. It might be kind of a judgement call though, a matter of taste, determining precisely where the dividing line is between those two.

 

leopold

Evidence? Of what, the fact that you believe in a god for which no evidence(beyond the beliefs of you or others)exists? Well, don't you? If you think god exists, and since there is no evidence for or against the existence of god beyond hearsay and opinion, your belief is an assumption not supported by any facts, PERIOD. What part of that statement do you not understand?

I'll not be retracting that factual statement, learn to deal with reality outside the protective bubble of those who validate your assumptions, they don't know anything more than a toddler does about the subject either. There is no evidence that a supernatural being does not exist, apologists will find a loophole to explain away all questions(though they get more ridiculous and incredulous by the second when doing so). It is equally impossible for you to prove there is no invisible, purple dragon in my basement. But there is no evidence beyond the opinion of believers that any god does exist, either. None. So your belief in a god's existence is nothing but an assumption based on what other believers told you from the time you were a child.

The default position is there is no god, unless and until evidence is found to the contrary, the default is NOT the opinion of ANY of the thousands of conflicting sets of assumptions made by the myriad sects of believers. The facts are not changed by the popularity(or lack thereof)of the facts. What is true is true DESPITE anyone's opinion to the contrary.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's not the situation I was enquiring about.
I specifically said where an atheist of the "no belief" variety is constantly debated with as if they were an atheist of "god doesn't exist" variety.
You can't just say "well, the atheist of 'no belief' has already argued that a god does not exist" and expect that to fly.
That is what I would call bashing - along the lines of applying stereotypes etc.

Noone is talking about misapplying criteria.
It may (and undoubtedly does) happen, but that is not what I'm referring to.
Although you raise an issue where perhaps religionists automatically assume that criticism is due to the misapplication, when actually it may not be.
I.e. they dismiss it and claim it to be bashing when it actually isn't.
Also physics has a lot to say about philosophy: where physics says something is impossible (i.e. not just outside the remit of science but actually impossible), philosophy better well listen or be consigned to the scrapheap.
Hence we have no philosophies that include a lack of gravity.
[quot]Since when does philosophy make claims about gravity?![/quote]It doesn't make direct claims, but they have to be compatible with observations of gravity at work.

Yet individual philosophies are not considered as sacrosanct as religion.
To argue against a philosophy is considered acceptable, tolerated, and to be encouraged.
To argue against a religion on the same basis is too oft considered verboten, seemingly due to the religion making claim to what they consider an unquestionable authority, and thus to question it is to insult them.
It is quite possibly dual standards.

I am not justifying the misapplication of the methods.
I am merely questioning the higher standard that religion demands compared to the other philosophies.
I am patently aware that it is all subjective (otherwise science would be all over it), but there is a clear difference of standard that religion requires/demands to any other branch of philosophy.

If you do not understand this, then you are unlikely to appreciate the nature of the issue in question here.
Those thinking they hold the higher ground are going to be reluctant to recognise that they have put themselves on top of a hill, let alone agree to move to a level playing field.

 

First, such "stereotypes" applied to atheists are not personally insulting. Nothing about assuming an atheist does not believe a god exists presumes that they are ignorant, or any of a variety of other ad hominems. Second, if not denying the existence of a god, on what grounds is such an atheist arguing? Agnosticism? Agnostic arguments rely on those asserting them to admitting they do not know. So it is actually better to allow a "no belief" atheist to make such arguments.

Atheism, of any variety, actually has the benefit of being assumed an "intellectual position", which is very far from personally insulting stereotypes.

Now if someone starts calling atheists immoral, just for being atheists, that would be an actionable hasty generalization.

You have not participated in many philosophy debates then. Someone who espouses Kant, for example, can be just as intractable as any religious person.

The only immediate difference is that religious people are very often called ignorant and the like, where some modicum of civility would likely be upheld discussing philosophy. But I am sure that continues to elude you.

 

Wait a minute here! You've just said that the bible is not true! Do you mean that?!?

Listen, buddy, if you pick up a book and it says 2+2=5, you throw it in the garbage! I mean wtf?

So as long as a religionist makes no claims at all they're safe? I'm ok with that. So women are equal to men, and gays are fine, and bacon is good, and we don't have to get our dicks chopped about. Great. We can all be normal rational people.

 

There is a difference between opinion and fact-claim.

 

Can you expand upon that?