4 ms·

I've started mentally translating all instances " because of my religion" to "because I really really want it", as that is what it effectively translates to. T

I've started mentally translating all instances " because of my religion" to "because I really really want it", as that is what it effectively translates to. There's just no easy line to draw otherwise between "because religion" and any other personal desire. It's not an appeal to any logic or meaning or external truth or specialness or benefit of humankind or world etc. But it's become this magic phrase that causes us to pause and consider requests that would otherwise be automatically denied on their own ground.

FDSGSG 5y ago
Why does this get downvoted? Does there exist a reasonable counterargument to this? I'd really like to hear it.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  Because it sounds antagonistic, it's counter indicated by modern culture, plus large proportion of any given audience IS religious and firmly believes they are entitled to special treatment, which is indeed enshrined in laws of most countries. I've been atheist all my life and it took Me 30 years to get beyond my own cultural conditioning and allow myself to To think "religion is not special belief above all others". Still sounds like a sacrilege even to me and I have to fight the instinct to give it special privilege mentally and automatically. Note that most other protected features are assumed to be ingrained and largely immutable for the purpose of the law (race, age, etc). The law treats religion the same, as opposed to personal choice that it is like all others. One of my light-bulb moments was when I started replacing phrase "Christian /Muslim / Etc child" with "child of Christian / Muslim / Hindu /etc parents". We should not pretend we do not have agency and freedom of belief... And thus be judged upon that chosen belief like all others. "I want to hurt that animal / abuse women / disrespect others /etc" should be treated no differently whether suffixed by "because religion" or "because I want to".
  - gpderetta 5y ago
    I'm not religious either, that's why I recognize that protected features are not some immutable law of nature but a social construct. As a society we have long come to the conclusion that, for good or bad, limiting religious expression leads do disastrous consequences. That doesn't mean that religion should have free reign (we have for example long decided that church and state should be separate), but any change of the status quo needs to go largely through general social agreement, not mandated from first principles.
- WithinReason 5y ago
  It completely ignores the fact that it's possible to have deep religious beliefs about something.
  - FDSGSG 5y ago
    It doesn't. It simply makes the argument that deep religious beliefs are not different from other deep beliefs. At it's face, this appears to be a pretty reasonable take. Why would religious beliefs be special?
    - WithinReason 5y ago
      The OP used the expression "because I really really want it", which doesn't describe religious belief. You might do something that your religion tells you to do even if you don't want to do it.
      - NikolaNovak 5y ago
        >> "You might do something that your religion tells you to do even if you don't want to do it." That merely pushes recursion one quick and easy level further. As an individual with agency, you choose to adopt and obey a particular religion. You "want to". It should not excuse you from your actions or give extra special credence to your demands.
      - danbruc 5y ago
        I don't think this is a valid argument. If you have a conflict between what your religions says and what you conclude by other means and you decide - for whatever reasons - to follow the religion, then you still want this thing. It might not be a case of I really, really want this but it is still a case of I just want this.
        WithinReason 5y ago
        Case in point: "Really really wanting" to make an animal suffer is only possible for people with a certain level of cruelty. Religious prescription makes it possible for otherwise not cruel people to make animals suffer. Blurring the distinction is not helpful or smart in any way.
- hackeraccount 5y ago
  Because it makes a show of pointing out that religious views are arbitrary and capricious to a degree that implies that isn't the case with any number of non religious views. Freedom of conscience is a tricky thing. There are a lot of things that one person might see as falling under that while another might see as affecting the rights of some third party.
  - NikolaNovak 5y ago
    On the contrary. Law in most places gives religion credit above arbitrary and capricious. If I want to murder an animal in particular way, wear a hat for license photo, take time off work, interact with people in a specific way, get exceptions or accommodations in workplace, restaurants, schools, public institutions, or do any number of things that may or may impact others, for any number of arbitrary and capricious reasons, I may receive a negative answer. But that answer changes solely because I append "because my religion tells me so". My method reminds me there isn't actually some different less arbitrary reasoning automatically worth of respect and consideration. I just really want it. In other words, I am not claiming (here) religion is more arbitrary. I am saying it is no less arbitrary, and due to my cultural conditioning and social norms in Western world, it takes conscious effort to remind myself of that.
danbruc 5y ago
But even then, if the better part of a population [1] just really, really wants something even if it objectively makes no sense at all, on which ground do you oppose the desire of the majority? I am not sure if you could justifiably oppose the majority, but if you can, it requires probably quite a bit of philosophical work to make that case. [1] Just to be clear, I am not talking about this specific case, there is no majority here, but about the general case where a majority has some unreasonable ideas.
- FDSGSG 5y ago
  Our democratic model will bend to the unreasonable demands of the majority. But religious people are increasingly not the majority in Europe, certainly not the ones that demand special animal abuse privileges.
  - danbruc 5y ago
    I wouldn't even want to restrict this to religion, there are other topics like taxation, climate change, capital punishment, gun laws, and what not where I can easily imagine that the majority opinion might be flawed because people don't think the issues through carefully enough. And I would guess that it is actually not too uncommon that politics acts against the majority opinion or at least the opinion of large groups. I don't think that this is necessarily bad, after all they are - at least supposed to be - the experts. And that is why I commented to begin with, there is probably some interesting philosophy going on in this area as the majority opinion is not necessarily the correct opinion.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  You have the constitution setting the framework of what's permissible. Some countries like Germany have portions of the constitution that can't legally be changed, relating to human rights or the state being a democracy. Of course a sufficiently large majority can just ignore that.
- WkmYq 5y ago
  I can oppose the desires of the majority on exactly the same grounds as I can oppose the desires of a single person. Being in the majority doesn't give anyone the right to impose their desires on everyone else. There is really nothing morally special about a majority.
wayneftw 5y ago
It's easy to over simplify things to the point of absurdity. This is like saying that when you read "because science tells us" that you translate it to "because I believe anything that scientists say" as that is what is effectively happening.
dekken_ 5y ago
change is difficult https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html

FDSGSG 5y ago

Why does this get downvoted? Does there exist a reasonable counterargument to this? I'd really like to hear it.

NikolaNovak 5y ago
Because it sounds antagonistic, it's counter indicated by modern culture, plus large proportion of any given audience IS religious and firmly believes they are entitled to special treatment, which is indeed enshrined in laws of most countries. I've been atheist all my life and it took Me 30 years to get beyond my own cultural conditioning and allow myself to To think "religion is not special belief above all others". Still sounds like a sacrilege even to me and I have to fight the instinct to give it special privilege mentally and automatically. Note that most other protected features are assumed to be ingrained and largely immutable for the purpose of the law (race, age, etc). The law treats religion the same, as opposed to personal choice that it is like all others. One of my light-bulb moments was when I started replacing phrase "Christian /Muslim / Etc child" with "child of Christian / Muslim / Hindu /etc parents". We should not pretend we do not have agency and freedom of belief... And thus be judged upon that chosen belief like all others. "I want to hurt that animal / abuse women / disrespect others /etc" should be treated no differently whether suffixed by "because religion" or "because I want to".
- gpderetta 5y ago
  I'm not religious either, that's why I recognize that protected features are not some immutable law of nature but a social construct. As a society we have long come to the conclusion that, for good or bad, limiting religious expression leads do disastrous consequences. That doesn't mean that religion should have free reign (we have for example long decided that church and state should be separate), but any change of the status quo needs to go largely through general social agreement, not mandated from first principles.
WithinReason 5y ago
It completely ignores the fact that it's possible to have deep religious beliefs about something.
- FDSGSG 5y ago
  It doesn't. It simply makes the argument that deep religious beliefs are not different from other deep beliefs. At it's face, this appears to be a pretty reasonable take. Why would religious beliefs be special?
  - WithinReason 5y ago
    The OP used the expression "because I really really want it", which doesn't describe religious belief. You might do something that your religion tells you to do even if you don't want to do it.
    - NikolaNovak 5y ago
      >> "You might do something that your religion tells you to do even if you don't want to do it." That merely pushes recursion one quick and easy level further. As an individual with agency, you choose to adopt and obey a particular religion. You "want to". It should not excuse you from your actions or give extra special credence to your demands.
    - danbruc 5y ago
      I don't think this is a valid argument. If you have a conflict between what your religions says and what you conclude by other means and you decide - for whatever reasons - to follow the religion, then you still want this thing. It might not be a case of I really, really want this but it is still a case of I just want this.
      - WithinReason 5y ago
        Case in point: "Really really wanting" to make an animal suffer is only possible for people with a certain level of cruelty. Religious prescription makes it possible for otherwise not cruel people to make animals suffer. Blurring the distinction is not helpful or smart in any way.
hackeraccount 5y ago
Because it makes a show of pointing out that religious views are arbitrary and capricious to a degree that implies that isn't the case with any number of non religious views. Freedom of conscience is a tricky thing. There are a lot of things that one person might see as falling under that while another might see as affecting the rights of some third party.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  On the contrary. Law in most places gives religion credit above arbitrary and capricious. If I want to murder an animal in particular way, wear a hat for license photo, take time off work, interact with people in a specific way, get exceptions or accommodations in workplace, restaurants, schools, public institutions, or do any number of things that may or may impact others, for any number of arbitrary and capricious reasons, I may receive a negative answer. But that answer changes solely because I append "because my religion tells me so". My method reminds me there isn't actually some different less arbitrary reasoning automatically worth of respect and consideration. I just really want it. In other words, I am not claiming (here) religion is more arbitrary. I am saying it is no less arbitrary, and due to my cultural conditioning and social norms in Western world, it takes conscious effort to remind myself of that.

danbruc 5y ago

But even then, if the better part of a population [1] just really, really wants something even if it objectively makes no sense at all, on which ground do you oppose the desire of the majority? I am not sure if you could justifiably oppose the majority, but if you can, it requires probably quite a bit of philosophical work to make that case. [1] Just to be clear, I am not talking about this specific case, there is no majority here, but about the general case where a majority has some unreasonable ideas.

FDSGSG 5y ago
Our democratic model will bend to the unreasonable demands of the majority. But religious people are increasingly not the majority in Europe, certainly not the ones that demand special animal abuse privileges.
- danbruc 5y ago
  I wouldn't even want to restrict this to religion, there are other topics like taxation, climate change, capital punishment, gun laws, and what not where I can easily imagine that the majority opinion might be flawed because people don't think the issues through carefully enough. And I would guess that it is actually not too uncommon that politics acts against the majority opinion or at least the opinion of large groups. I don't think that this is necessarily bad, after all they are - at least supposed to be - the experts. And that is why I commented to begin with, there is probably some interesting philosophy going on in this area as the majority opinion is not necessarily the correct opinion.
wongarsu 5y ago
You have the constitution setting the framework of what's permissible. Some countries like Germany have portions of the constitution that can't legally be changed, relating to human rights or the state being a democracy. Of course a sufficiently large majority can just ignore that.
WkmYq 5y ago
I can oppose the desires of the majority on exactly the same grounds as I can oppose the desires of a single person. Being in the majority doesn't give anyone the right to impose their desires on everyone else. There is really nothing morally special about a majority.

wayneftw 5y ago

It's easy to over simplify things to the point of absurdity. This is like saying that when you read "because science tells us" that you translate it to "because I believe anything that scientists say" as that is what is effectively happening.

dekken_ 5y ago

change is difficult https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html