5 ms·

>>2. The very foundations of religion are generally about questions that we with the human condition are by design not very likely to answer conclusively. How w

by tmptmp 10y ago

>>2. The very foundations of religion are generally about questions that we with the human condition are by design not very likely to answer conclusively. How will you ever show that there is no God if technological progress is likely to enable us the construction of artifical realities in the future? I am afraid there is a confusion in the above statement about deeper philosophical considerations (like whether there is god(s) or not?) with the extremely lowly ramblings found in religious scriptures (e.g. there is no other god but allah and that muhammad is his (and not her) last messenger, or that the earth is flat and is at the center of the universe) and that these lowly ramblings are claimed to have been written by omniscient god(s). Yes, I do agree that there may be some discussion about some deep philosophical questions to be found in the heap of ramblings present in the religious texts. But the philosophical issues are hardly of foundational nature in most mainstream religions including Judaism, Christianity and Islam. We can easily see that their foundations are rather lowly claims like there is no other god but allah and that muhammad is his (and not her) last messenger, or that the earth is flat and is at the center of the universe. So the very foundations I am talking about, are the almost foolish and childish claims made in religious scriptures and a foundational issue that these foolish/flimsy claims are made by god(s). A religious society will not allow any public information that it considers as having the potential to shake the foundations of their religion to be available to the public for consideration/discussion. I have no problem with a rational discussion about whether there is god or not or a single god or multiple gods etc. >>Maybe we could life in a better world if we aimed to disregarded world views from politics ... Yes, I do agree.

ace_of_spades 10y ago
Thank you for your response :) It seems like I couldn't really convey the point I was trying to make. So, here is one more attempt. The human condition prevents us from making certain assertions about reality. I think no rational person living today would deny that. Still, we often feel the need to impose our own world view over others because our own experiences scream: that other person simply can't be right. However, people have different experiences and might even have good reasons for their seemingly crazy beliefs. The world could even end from one day to the next (not even that crazy if you believe in something like the matrix or a simulated world). We simply cannot know... anything could be possible. I guess that's nothing new but we often seem to forget the consequences this situation has. If you talk about foolish or childish claims in scripture it is an attack against their reality and identity. Any argument you make, a fundamentalist will reject because from their point of view you are the fool... and they have a point, you simply don't understand their reality. And why should they change? Are we doing so much better? Would you change your identity to conform someone elses view of reality? The world is simply full of hypocracy... So what I wanted to suggest is that I understand the difficulty that religious people/states have with "rational" people. I believe for any meaningful communication and learning to happen (on both sides), we have to create a level playing field by acknowledging the other person as a human being with something to contribute even if they come from a place we don't understand. Moreover, if you really want to convince someone to change some belief there is probably no better way than to demonstrate the benefits of the new belief and show how they follow from the change you are proposing. To connect that to your prior comment, I simply felt that your way to frame religious states as somewhat inherently less not really meaningful for the problem at hand and more a distraction from the underlying problem. I hope that makes more sense. What do you think? Hope to back that perspective up with some more convincing evidence in the future :) P.S. Edited a few times to make my rambling more clear :D
- tmptmp 10y ago
  >>Any argument you make, a fundamentalist will reject because from their point of view you are the fool... and they have a point, you simply don't understand their reality. And why should they change? Are we doing so much better? Would you change your identity to conform someone elses view of reality? The world is simply full of hypocracy... Fine, I don't want them to change; they may continue to believe in whatever (e.g. fairy-tales in Qurans/Bibles, like muhammad flew to heaven on a horse and met allah and came back to tell them his travel story) they choose to believe in. I don't have much problem with what anyone wishes to believe. But the issue doesn't stop there. >>The human condition prevents us from making certain assertions about reality. I think no rational person living today would deny that. Still, we often feel the need to impose our own world view over others because our own experiences scream: that other person simply can't be right. What would you say about the believers in Nazism? Most religions (including Islam) are like Nazism when it comes to their treatment of non-believers/apostates. The real troublesome are those parts in their scriptures where the believers are commanded (ordered) to wage war against the unbelievers (and non-followers). It is here the societies which follow the notion of "separation of religion and state" (modern western democracies) and those which don't follow that notion (religious nations) differ in a crucial manner. >>So what I wanted to suggest is that I understand the difficulty that religious people/states have with "rational" people. I believe for any meaningful communication and learning to happen (on both sides), we have to create a level playing field by acknowledging the other person as a human being with something to contribute even if they come from a place we don't understand. What kind of level playing field can we even expect to have if we are forced to tolerate the intolerant religious elements making violent reactions to any thoughts expressed? (e.g. killing the Charlie Hebdo staff just they expressed some thoughts that the religious people found offending) What kind of level playing field would you have offered to Nazis? >>Moreover, if you really want to convince someone to change some belief there is probably no better way than to demonstrate the benefits of the new belief and show how they follow from the change you are proposing. Yes, it is very important and I do agree. Unfortunately, the rigid religious nature of these socities make it much harder to even communicate your thoughts. Just imagine trying to convince humanist and rationalist values with the help of verbal discussions to Nazi people. I think the modern western world with democratic systems is far superior from a humanistic view-point as compared to the barbaric Islamic nations. And with immegration and otherwise, if these people are coming to modern western world, it becomes our duty to tell them unequivocally "what is negotiable and what is not and that some aspects of their religious beliefs can be accommodated but some barbaric aspects cannot be tolerated in our society because in our society we do not allow religions to play any significant role at societal/interpersonal level, that religion can only be a personal matter to them". So, we must try to have a dialogue with Islamists and other religious people. But if the modern free societies in the western world wish to continue enjoying the freedom they have hard earned by fighting against some of the religions (the Christianity, Judaism), then they must make it clear that these values are NOT negotiable with some new religions (including Islam), just to accommodate their (barbaric) manners/scriptures in our societies. >>If you talk about foolish or childish claims in scripture it is an attack against their reality and identity. Yes, I understand that they may perceive such opinions as an attack against their reality/identity but I want you to note that it is a verbal and thought attack and not physical attack. So, if they cannot tolerate difference of opinions, then we must tell them unequivocally "that they have to learn and abide by these modern, humanistic, democratic values if they wish to live here, that they have to learn that we value the freedom to offend their (or anyone's) sentiments/feelings, that everyone here has the freedom to criticize, ridicule, their religion, their prophet(s), their ways."

by tmptmp 10y ago

ace_of_spades 10y ago

Thank you for your response :) It seems like I couldn't really convey the point I was trying to make. So, here is one more attempt. The human condition prevents us from making certain assertions about reality. I think no rational person living today would deny that. Still, we often feel the need to impose our own world view over others because our own experiences scream: that other person simply can't be right. However, people have different experiences and might even have good reasons for their seemingly crazy beliefs. The world could even end from one day to the next (not even that crazy if you believe in something like the matrix or a simulated world). We simply cannot know... anything could be possible. I guess that's nothing new but we often seem to forget the consequences this situation has. If you talk about foolish or childish claims in scripture it is an attack against their reality and identity. Any argument you make, a fundamentalist will reject because from their point of view you are the fool... and they have a point, you simply don't understand their reality. And why should they change? Are we doing so much better? Would you change your identity to conform someone elses view of reality? The world is simply full of hypocracy... So what I wanted to suggest is that I understand the difficulty that religious people/states have with "rational" people. I believe for any meaningful communication and learning to happen (on both sides), we have to create a level playing field by acknowledging the other person as a human being with something to contribute even if they come from a place we don't understand. Moreover, if you really want to convince someone to change some belief there is probably no better way than to demonstrate the benefits of the new belief and show how they follow from the change you are proposing. To connect that to your prior comment, I simply felt that your way to frame religious states as somewhat inherently less not really meaningful for the problem at hand and more a distraction from the underlying problem. I hope that makes more sense. What do you think? Hope to back that perspective up with some more convincing evidence in the future :) P.S. Edited a few times to make my rambling more clear :D

tmptmp 10y ago
>>Any argument you make, a fundamentalist will reject because from their point of view you are the fool... and they have a point, you simply don't understand their reality. And why should they change? Are we doing so much better? Would you change your identity to conform someone elses view of reality? The world is simply full of hypocracy... Fine, I don't want them to change; they may continue to believe in whatever (e.g. fairy-tales in Qurans/Bibles, like muhammad flew to heaven on a horse and met allah and came back to tell them his travel story) they choose to believe in. I don't have much problem with what anyone wishes to believe. But the issue doesn't stop there. >>The human condition prevents us from making certain assertions about reality. I think no rational person living today would deny that. Still, we often feel the need to impose our own world view over others because our own experiences scream: that other person simply can't be right. What would you say about the believers in Nazism? Most religions (including Islam) are like Nazism when it comes to their treatment of non-believers/apostates. The real troublesome are those parts in their scriptures where the believers are commanded (ordered) to wage war against the unbelievers (and non-followers). It is here the societies which follow the notion of "separation of religion and state" (modern western democracies) and those which don't follow that notion (religious nations) differ in a crucial manner. >>So what I wanted to suggest is that I understand the difficulty that religious people/states have with "rational" people. I believe for any meaningful communication and learning to happen (on both sides), we have to create a level playing field by acknowledging the other person as a human being with something to contribute even if they come from a place we don't understand. What kind of level playing field can we even expect to have if we are forced to tolerate the intolerant religious elements making violent reactions to any thoughts expressed? (e.g. killing the Charlie Hebdo staff just they expressed some thoughts that the religious people found offending) What kind of level playing field would you have offered to Nazis? >>Moreover, if you really want to convince someone to change some belief there is probably no better way than to demonstrate the benefits of the new belief and show how they follow from the change you are proposing. Yes, it is very important and I do agree. Unfortunately, the rigid religious nature of these socities make it much harder to even communicate your thoughts. Just imagine trying to convince humanist and rationalist values with the help of verbal discussions to Nazi people. I think the modern western world with democratic systems is far superior from a humanistic view-point as compared to the barbaric Islamic nations. And with immegration and otherwise, if these people are coming to modern western world, it becomes our duty to tell them unequivocally "what is negotiable and what is not and that some aspects of their religious beliefs can be accommodated but some barbaric aspects cannot be tolerated in our society because in our society we do not allow religions to play any significant role at societal/interpersonal level, that religion can only be a personal matter to them". So, we must try to have a dialogue with Islamists and other religious people. But if the modern free societies in the western world wish to continue enjoying the freedom they have hard earned by fighting against some of the religions (the Christianity, Judaism), then they must make it clear that these values are NOT negotiable with some new religions (including Islam), just to accommodate their (barbaric) manners/scriptures in our societies. >>If you talk about foolish or childish claims in scripture it is an attack against their reality and identity. Yes, I understand that they may perceive such opinions as an attack against their reality/identity but I want you to note that it is a verbal and thought attack and not physical attack. So, if they cannot tolerate difference of opinions, then we must tell them unequivocally "that they have to learn and abide by these modern, humanistic, democratic values if they wish to live here, that they have to learn that we value the freedom to offend their (or anyone's) sentiments/feelings, that everyone here has the freedom to criticize, ridicule, their religion, their prophet(s), their ways."