4 ms·

I would counter that interpreting religious texts as an overall activity is not a reasonable one. It is good an reasonable to show people respect but the same

I would counter that interpreting religious texts as an overall activity is not a reasonable one. It is good an reasonable to show people respect but the same isn't owed to beliefs. Mysticism has an undue influence worldwide on the legality of all sorts of things beyond stem cell research. We shouldn't be afraid to call out, or even laugh at this kind of superstition.

grzm 9y ago
> It is good an reasonable to show people respect but the same isn't owed to beliefs I agree. This is exactly why I wrote as I did in the above: > willingness to try to understand others > try to do so in a manner that shows respect for someone else > granting anyone the benefit of the doubt that they may be able to reasonably interpret religious texts to mean something other than a strict literal interpretation. This can charitably (and without much of a stretch) read as "granting anyone the benefit of the doubt that they may be able to reasonably interpret <whatever> in a way that may differ from yours". It's not limited to interpretation of religious texts. And below: > I think it's important to take the time to try to understand where someone is coming from. Dismissing it out of hand prevents you from both understanding and hopefully being understood. You can understand and follow someone's logic without necessarily agreeing with it. You comment: > I would counter that interpreting religious texts as an overall activity is not a reasonable one. Which is why I elaborated below: > My point is not to discuss interpretation of religious texts. If you expect others to understand your point of you (much less come to agree with it), I believe it's incumbent on you to understand theirs. If you've already written off or otherwise dismissed others, there's little point in discussion.
- brookside 9y ago
  > You can understand and follow someone's logic without necessarily agreeing with it. Religion isn't logic- it is indoctrinated superstition. There are no reasons to understand. Faith is undebatable. Certainly being combative won't win anybody over, we all know that. But there is no real understanding to be gained debating with someone who has derived their position from an ancient text they believe to be sacred. I don't care if their interpretation is "reasonable" or not...I just don't see how their divining rod should be entering public debate.
  - grzm 9y ago
    What is your goal? A perfectly rational society? Does that take into account that human psychology (the behavior, not the science) is not (completely, if at all) rational? (I'd argue that the goal of a rational society specifically takes into account this inherent non-rational behavior, both in ourselves and others.) How do you want to get there? Do you want to convince those that don't agree with you? Are you yourself open to having your opinion changed? These in my opinion on are both difficult problems and problems worth tackling. If the religion aspect of it is a sticking point for you, substitute anything over which people strongly disagree. Where do you draw the line as to what's worthwhile discussing or who it's worthwhile discussing with? This is really the crux of what I've been trying to express. As for "their divining rod should not be entering public debate at all", there are a large number of people who do hold religious beliefs, and are part of the public. Public debate is going to include such discussion because it's a part of who people are. Are you going to shun them? Segregate yourself from them? These are clearly straw men, and I don't ascribe them to you. Don't get me wrong, I don't have an answer to this, and likely there needs to be a varied approach as people themselves are varied. But I do think that not engaging with or dismissing each other if we're acting charitably and in good faith is not a solution. (And faith certainly is debatable: there's a long history of theological debate which includes debates about faith, both in the particulars as what is believed and the nature of faith itself.) Anyway, this is likely the last I'll post in this thread. Best.

grzm 9y ago

> It is good an reasonable to show people respect but the same isn't owed to beliefs I agree. This is exactly why I wrote as I did in the above: > willingness to try to understand others > try to do so in a manner that shows respect for someone else > granting anyone the benefit of the doubt that they may be able to reasonably interpret religious texts to mean something other than a strict literal interpretation. This can charitably (and without much of a stretch) read as "granting anyone the benefit of the doubt that they may be able to reasonably interpret <whatever> in a way that may differ from yours". It's not limited to interpretation of religious texts. And below: > I think it's important to take the time to try to understand where someone is coming from. Dismissing it out of hand prevents you from both understanding and hopefully being understood. You can understand and follow someone's logic without necessarily agreeing with it. You comment: > I would counter that interpreting religious texts as an overall activity is not a reasonable one. Which is why I elaborated below: > My point is not to discuss interpretation of religious texts. If you expect others to understand your point of you (much less come to agree with it), I believe it's incumbent on you to understand theirs. If you've already written off or otherwise dismissed others, there's little point in discussion.

brookside 9y ago
> You can understand and follow someone's logic without necessarily agreeing with it. Religion isn't logic- it is indoctrinated superstition. There are no reasons to understand. Faith is undebatable. Certainly being combative won't win anybody over, we all know that. But there is no real understanding to be gained debating with someone who has derived their position from an ancient text they believe to be sacred. I don't care if their interpretation is "reasonable" or not...I just don't see how their divining rod should be entering public debate.
- grzm 9y ago
  What is your goal? A perfectly rational society? Does that take into account that human psychology (the behavior, not the science) is not (completely, if at all) rational? (I'd argue that the goal of a rational society specifically takes into account this inherent non-rational behavior, both in ourselves and others.) How do you want to get there? Do you want to convince those that don't agree with you? Are you yourself open to having your opinion changed? These in my opinion on are both difficult problems and problems worth tackling. If the religion aspect of it is a sticking point for you, substitute anything over which people strongly disagree. Where do you draw the line as to what's worthwhile discussing or who it's worthwhile discussing with? This is really the crux of what I've been trying to express. As for "their divining rod should not be entering public debate at all", there are a large number of people who do hold religious beliefs, and are part of the public. Public debate is going to include such discussion because it's a part of who people are. Are you going to shun them? Segregate yourself from them? These are clearly straw men, and I don't ascribe them to you. Don't get me wrong, I don't have an answer to this, and likely there needs to be a varied approach as people themselves are varied. But I do think that not engaging with or dismissing each other if we're acting charitably and in good faith is not a solution. (And faith certainly is debatable: there's a long history of theological debate which includes debates about faith, both in the particulars as what is believed and the nature of faith itself.) Anyway, this is likely the last I'll post in this thread. Best.