3 ms·

I'm not sure why you think the genuineness of a belief is relevant when it comes to scrutinizing harmful actions based on those beliefs. Lots of people genuinel

• gremlinsinc 7y ago
  Kicking a gay kid out would be a reward compared to those conversion camp things that are so horrible... at least on their own they don't have to put up w/ the parent's abuse, neglect etc... they should though be required to pay the kid child support until they're 25, to make up for being an asshole parent.
• rayiner 7y ago
  > I'm not sure why you think the genuineness of a belief is relevant when it comes to scrutinizing harmful actions based on those beliefs. Because the substantive truth of the theology isn’t dispositive of whether family members have a right (in the social, not legal, sense) to criticize each other from departing from certain norms and practices. For example, there is a lot of evidence showing that the supposed harms of moderate drinking during pregnancy are overstated, and the benefits of breast feeding are overstated. The effect of screen time on kids is also overstated. Just because someone might conclude that advice is wrong, does that mean family members are out of bounds for giving that advice? Or that people shouldn’t have to graciously accept it? There are boundaries, sure, but family members are entitled to express their views on how each other live their lives. Beyond that, there are objective benefits to religion apart from the truth or falsity of the theological doctrine. Studies show that actively religious people tend to be significantly happier and more socially involved: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religio.... Is that a sufficient basis for family members to encourage each other to raise their kids within the community religion, irrespective of the truth of the theology? Also, there are non-falsifiable moral judgments that are independent of but associated with religion. Secular US culture emphasizes individualism, self expression, and personal fulfillment. Many believe that kids should be raised with a strong sense of duty to family, and the expectation that their purpose in life is to work hard and raise families of their own. These ideas are independent of theological truth. Many non-religious people believe these things too. But if you think it’s important for kids to be consistently exposed to those ideas, you’ll find that most of the people who have those beliefs just happen to be either religious (or Asian, or both). Is it out of line for communities to encourage their members to conform to values that they believe are more conducive to a better world? Whether the underlying theology is true or false doesn’t change the answer.
  • sofal 7y ago
    > Because the substantive truth of the theology isn’t dispositive of whether family members have a right to criticize each other from departing from certain practices. So are we talking about what rights people have now? We have all sorts of rights to engage in all kinds of harmful activity. You’re not going to find in me any opposition to the idea that people should have a right to criticize others. Let's not muddy the issue by talking in terms of "rights", because that is just as irrelevant as the idea that the genuineness of beliefs justifies harmful actions. And let’s also not lose sight of the fact that we’re not talking about people “encouraging” their family members to conform to generic values of family duty and hard work. We’re talking about people telling their friends and family that they are damning their families to an actual real hell, and that they are going to be eternally cut off from an omnipotent loving deity that has massive hangups about coffee and masturbation. We’re talking about people who genuinely believe that their gay kids can and need to be “fixed”. These are concrete claims that have no rational justification, and the actions that result are harmful. Your study link also doesn’t support what you think it does. If you looked at these numbers and compared them with people who are active in anything else, you’d find a statistically insignificant difference. You could be active in your local book club, your monthly astronomy meetup, or your local atheist group and be just as happy. This is just the difference between socially active people and people who aren’t socially active. But since the idea that people who are socially active are happier is too obvious to publish, let’s instead pretend that somehow it’s religiosity that matters.
  • zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > Because the substantive truth of the theology isn’t dispositive of whether family members have a right (in the social, not legal, sense) to criticize each other from departing from certain norms and practices. Yes, it most definitely is! > Just because someone might conclude that advice is wrong, does that mean family members are out of bounds for giving that advice? No. But "just" because your "advice" is completely unsubstantiated, which you would notice if you cared to exercise a minimum of skepticism, that does mean that giving that advice is out of bounds. The equivalent of pushing religion is not "breast feeding is healthy", the equivalent is "you should not vaccinate because that causes autism". Outright bullshit is not the same thing as possibly not 100% perfectly reliable science. > Or that people shouldn’t have to graciously accept it? We are obviously talking about a situation where someone in the family has made a conscious decision to leave the religion behind. That is obviously not a situation where they should be expected to graciously accept any further pestering on religion, because that is obviously overstepping a known boundary of that person. (Note that that is different from trying to talk to them about religion, where there is genuine interest in understanding their position, rather than just the intent to convince them to come back--that is perfectly fine as long as the person does not explicitly state otherwise.)