Why Arguing Religion is Pointless
- Thread starter jimtaylor
- Start date
I find I do not argue with people about religion any more. I do find I argue with them about why they have such an issue with me not having one though.
Most people are false people. A lot of them happen to be Christian. I don't think this behavior has much to do with Christianity. It has to do with human nature. Most people are far more concerned with social acceptance than anything else.
Logic couldn't possibly be considered as restrictive as faith because logic, by-definition, is rational thinking using strict principles. These principles are not restrictive, they are simply strict because they provide a framework for the mind which attempts to prevent people from becoming suicide murderers or believing in fairy nonsense for the sake of honesty, truth and providing an accurate display of the world around us. Why would you consider faith to be as restrictive as logic? Quite ironically, this would appear to me to be a logical fallacy. Faith involves complete trust and complete confidence in somebody or something and leaves no room for improvement, scepticism, self-criticism, objectivity, or other Enlightenment-era methods of rational thinking. Having faith in something implies you're not willing to look at the situation objectively, nor are you willing to make a compromise or form agreement with somebody of an opposing faith.
I didn't mention Christians in that post. It's not exclusive to Christianity. It also isn't exclusive to religion. I only used Christianity in a post earlier as an example that many would be familiar with.
The question was basically "why don't they practice what they preach" and the answer was basically tautological.
If anything, the relevant phrase is not that the behavior has much to do with Christianity, it's that Christians and religious people in general are not immune to this behavior.
[MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION]
It's not anti Christian, it's anti people. As I said earlier, religion doesn't do anything, people do. There are good Christians and bad Christians so clearly the concept of Christian is not what makes the difference.
It's the common denominator, not the numerator.
It's not anti Christian, it's anti people. As I said earlier, religion doesn't do anything, people do. There are good Christians and bad Christians so clearly the concept of Christian is not what makes the difference.
It's the common denominator, not the numerator.
Mmm, I disagree. Muslims are far more likely to commit certain crimes. Islam inspires awful behavior. Religion (including the culture that surrounds it) makes a difference.
I believe both are accountable, the individual and the religion.
I would certainly agree with you that morality is separate from religion. However, logic is not logic. There are many different kinds of logics, and many are disputed and denied...much like religious positions. That which is taught is not necessarily correct. Consider non-classical systems of logic. These may be correct rather than the standard "true" OR "false" value systems.
At risk of sounding defensive (but am really only meaning to clarify), I was attempting to shoot down the point I quoted as it connected religion and morality in a way that doesn't hold. I feel that the author of that point agreed with that intention, but still felt that the statement "religion teaches morality" had such a dissatisfying consequent. I thought this was because he was looking more at the general response of religions folk rather than the fact of the statement "religion teaches morality".
The point that religion is separate from morality is what I was getting at. In the same way that a logic class can teach logic and one need not be in that logic class to be a logician, so to may one be outside of religion and be moral. Likewise, I certainly wouldn't claim that all logic classes teach logic correctly (and so are not teaching logic at all). Neither would I claim that all religions teach morality correctly (and so are not teaching morality at all). These are separate claims, and neither invalidates the other.
I do think that religion is the only option for some people to get even an inkling of the right direction of morality though. I think some people are either not able or not willing (for whatever reasons) to explore what is the moral thing to do in abstracto. Some people just don't know how to think like that, but it seems that that is how morality is. Religion is one possible alternative that can get through to people on a non purely abstract level. While not perfect, it is very successful in so many cases.
I too enjoy these discussions. Please don't take my direct way of speaking as harsh or wounded or unemotional or whatever other dispositional condition you wish to apply. Something philosophy classes have taught me is that in these discussions, speaking clearly and directly is crucial. I need to apologize for I am still learning exactly how to do that.
I'm not going to debate whether or not I missed her point. I know I have done that in the past on other forum threads or comments, but I'm trying to learn to be better. I see that such things are petty, but I only sometimes notice it. Bear with me, please, when I don't catch myself. I'm still learning.
That being said, don't ever hesitate to point out when you think I've missed the point. I'll let you in on a secret.
That is actually my biggest fear. That I am missing something. Something simple. I worry about this all the time in my philosophy classes as I read the texts or listen to the teachers. I have lived with this fear for the past three years (since I stated looking into philosophy). It makes me worry that I'm not smart enough for this because I just know that I'm missing something (I unconsciously assume it even though it may or may not be unfounded). I'm not sure if people can understand this feeling, but in psychology terms, its because I identify my philosophy ability as a major part of my identity. This fear questions whether or not that identity is me.
The only way I know to fight it (that I like) is to do the best I can, and recognize that "missing something" is a part of being a philosophy student. I'm still digesting what that truly means, so I am no where near good at this concept yet.
When people use it wrongly, logic turns into dogma, just as any other cult. I'm sure you could admit that.
Logic can give the illusion of truth when we loose touch of the assumptions we necessarily make. Logic can be applied to any set of assumptions, and it be successful. For example, I assume there exists glurgs. I also assume that if there are glurgs, then there are glumps. I assume I am looking at a glurg. Classical logic is effective in this set of assumptions. If A then B, A, therefore B. I just proved there are glumps here...given my assumptions. This is not irrational or illogical. It is in fact an interesting consequence of logic. I proved something that isn't true. The problem is assumptions necessarily don't have proofs in some cases. We can't prove that there is an external world governed by objective rules. We can't prove causal closure (given what we have now). We can't prove God. What makes the God assumption so different from the assumptions of science? Certainly not logic for logic will not see a difference between these assumptions. It will let us use whatever assumptions we feed it. It falls under what we, the people, consider reasonable. There is no proof for reasonable. Logic fails to give us certainty here, on pain of arbitrariness.
The part I bolded simply isn't true. One may have faith but be willing to question everything. Another may have faith in nothing and question nothing. These concepts are mutually exclusive. I would grant there is a psychological tendency for people to stop asking questions when they feel they have found answers, but this is a failing of people, not the rationality of religion. I am actively trying to build what I believe to be true. I don't know that I'll succeed, but I am being objective, and by you definition even. Perhaps more than you are willing to grant. You are restricting yourself to a strict view of what is considered "reasonable assumptions". I'm playing with whatever assumptions I can handle, and attempting to see the effectiveness of the different permutations. I do this, and yet I default at faith, because I choose to. Because otherwise, I'm not willing to grant the assumption that there is a valid default position at all, for the argument I proposed earlier in this thread. Religious belief isn't bound by the same set of approaches used by science. It is blatantly unfair to judge it by the approaches used in science. Lacking the criteria, there is no default position. If you have a counter point, then by all means put it forward. I would love to have an answer to my question if you have it.
That is my stance, do you find that irrational or close minded?
The individual either takes it upon their self to be inspired by this, or they are brainwashed by another person.
If Islam is so powerful then why doesn't have you in its grasp?
Also I find it ironic to say that a concept has power yet miraculously you as an individual remain unaffected.
If you can read about the religion, see what it does, and not even be slightly temped to be a part of it then it is not the religion.
If you can read about the religion, see what it does, and not even be slightly temped to be a part of it then it is not the religion.
I wasn't raised/don't live in a Muslim environment.
Children and teenagers are ill-equipped to resist indoctrination.
Being ill-equipped is an aspect of people and indoctrination is something done by people.
People vulnerable to ideas. Ideas don't have intelligence, they are made by it.
Most people are conformists. They conform to their society's ways and accept the ideas that define it, especially when execution is the alternative.
How so? If the majority of people conform wouldn't what they conform to have importance?
Conformity circularly implies importance in the first place.
Edit:
Also conformity is an action of people.