Should Religious Beliefs Be Immune From Criticism?
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
- Status
bushidomartialarts
Senior Master
it's very hard to discuss relgion rationally, mostly because religion is irrational.
then again, so is love, appreciation of art, self-sacrifice, the willingness to go to karate and get pounded for an hour and come out smiling.
some irrational things are beautiful and important. religion is one of them.
but it does really annoy rationalists who try and discuss relgion with the religious. "I believe in God because I see His face in every sunrise" is beautiful, stirring and sufficient for beleivers.
which makes some folks get irrational about religion and the religious.
then again, so is love, appreciation of art, self-sacrifice, the willingness to go to karate and get pounded for an hour and come out smiling.
some irrational things are beautiful and important. religion is one of them.
but it does really annoy rationalists who try and discuss relgion with the religious. "I believe in God because I see His face in every sunrise" is beautiful, stirring and sufficient for beleivers.
which makes some folks get irrational about religion and the religious.
Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
bushidomartialarts
Senior Master
blotan hunka is raising the real meat of the issue, i think.
personal belief is your own business. i have my relationship with God. it's probably different from yours. but that's okay, it's personal.
but if my personal belief says i should kill somebody over my interpretation of a millenia-old, five times translated, politically compromised document --- that's taking things a bit far, neh?
personal belief is your own business. i have my relationship with God. it's probably different from yours. but that's okay, it's personal.
but if my personal belief says i should kill somebody over my interpretation of a millenia-old, five times translated, politically compromised document --- that's taking things a bit far, neh?
OP
OP
You won't be thinking its so silly when scientists actually create a life form. See this book. Researchers are closer then you think.
Also, theories of abiogenesis are FAR more complex then what you described.
PS - note how the creationists have vandalized the Wiki article and then check the works cited pages below.
Anyway, in regards to criticizing religious beliefs, this is what I'm talking about. Except I don't think it should just be limited to Christian beliefs. If we are going to debunk one, then they all are fair game. Another point I think is provacative regards the fact that sometimes criticisms of various religious beliefs are labled as bigoted and that sometimes they are not and that it all depends on the religion. Is this fair?
Seems I inadvertently caused a bit of amusement when I said I would be a Quaker if Christian lol! If I said the Society of Friends does that make more sense? I've always found them to be good people, pacifists who work as medics in times of war, they aren't strident about their beliefs and don't criticise other religions. there's is the only religious service I feel I can go to and feel comfortable. It is quiet communication with God and trying to find your inner light. It's not a new age religion far from it.
It's also a matter of combiining what we see and observe with what we believe about it. When everything science tells us about the earth tells us it is Billions of years old, with life going back a very long time with different species emerging and becoming extinct, the theory of a 6000 year old universe in which life was created in pretty much its current form "should" IMO go right out the window.
The question basically was should we criticise religious beliefs and there's many posts saying some should be because they are silly beliefs or mistaken or just not scientific enough. I'm not sure anyone deserves being criticised really unless they are a danger to anyone.
I have a friend, she's much the same age as me (over 40ish) she wears clothes far too young for her, skirts too short. In her head she's 18! Of course it's silly of her and scientifically you know she can never look like an 18 yr old but she's happy, she believes she looks good, she doesn't harm anyone why would I want to criticise her and cause hurt when there is no need to. You could say it's for her own good but is it really or would it be because we feel she should conform? Tolerance is such a nice word! even better when practiced!
I have a friend, she's much the same age as me (over 40ish) she wears clothes far too young for her, skirts too short. In her head she's 18! Of course it's silly of her and scientifically you know she can never look like an 18 yr old but she's happy, she believes she looks good, she doesn't harm anyone why would I want to criticise her and cause hurt when there is no need to. You could say it's for her own good but is it really or would it be because we feel she should conform? Tolerance is such a nice word! even better when practiced!
To some extent yes, you are right, people are free to believe whatever they like.
However I think we would be failing our duty as a society to educate our young if we allowed some of these beliefs to be taught as part of there education.
All beliefs should be open to critisism, and different sides should be presented if they hold equal merit. But some thing, like a 6000 year old universe or the earth as the center of it, have been disproven and should no longer be taught as "factual."
However I think we would be failing our duty as a society to educate our young if we allowed some of these beliefs to be taught as part of there education.
All beliefs should be open to critisism, and different sides should be presented if they hold equal merit. But some thing, like a 6000 year old universe or the earth as the center of it, have been disproven and should no longer be taught as "factual."
To be honest I think perhaps the Creationist argument is not one we have very often here,at least the teaching of it.The National Curriculum in our schools means that the Creationist idea of how the Earth started is not taught. It's mentioned in Religious education classes where other religions are also examined but not in the science classes. If parents and religious teachers choose to teach it, it's up to them but we are all given the two views if you like.
Nor here, but the battle does happen in some places, and it shouldn't happen anywhere. It is a extreme example IMO, but the basic point is that religious ideas, and all other ideas need to be critisized. We should not be teaching any belief that cannot stand up to critisism with more of a case then "faith" pass off as factual or education.
Do you think we should change the word criticise to examine? Criticism seems to imply that we have already made our minds up that something is bad while examining beliefs is something a reasonable questioning person would do? It may be semantics but criticism has a tendancy to put peoples backs up immediately.
BlackCatBonz
Master Black Belt
1.This sort of idea seems to suggest that you believe atheists lack morallity.
How about this then
2.In order to live in a group, moraillty is required. Therefore as the benefits of living in a group are high, morallity will work its way in through Darwininian like social evolution. As the group grows, a method of standardizing and teaching morallity must come into it, so Darwinism leads to Religion
Anyways, morallity is not dependant on religion, religion can even be used to corrupt morallity and get people to do things there "natural" sense of morallity would probably prevent them from doing. (ex. Inquisition, Crusades, crashing planes into buildings, etc.)
1. nope
2.indeed
Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
-George Washington
If man may manufacture his own moral standard, then “anything goes”—and no one can say otherwise.
Immune is a very strong word.
So no, I don't think religious beliefs should necessarily be immune from criticism.
However, I don't think "criticizing beliefs" is a one-size-fits all statement.
How religion affects a national of China (being a Communist state) is likely to be very different than how religion affects a national of India, a democracy whose constitution offers rights based on what religion one practices. And this is likely to be very different than how religion affects a national of a Muslim state.
All of this is likely to be very different than how religion affects a national of an English-speaking Western country, where I hear religious wars dismissed as "people fighting over a book."
It's not that simple.
So no, I don't think religious beliefs should necessarily be immune from criticism.
However, I don't think "criticizing beliefs" is a one-size-fits all statement.
How religion affects a national of China (being a Communist state) is likely to be very different than how religion affects a national of India, a democracy whose constitution offers rights based on what religion one practices. And this is likely to be very different than how religion affects a national of a Muslim state.
All of this is likely to be very different than how religion affects a national of an English-speaking Western country, where I hear religious wars dismissed as "people fighting over a book."
It's not that simple.
Washington died before Darwin was even born. Prior to the theory of evolution it would have been very hard to justify not believing in a religion, immoral perhaps by the standards of the time.
I would submit that the quote has no relevance as the person that made it had a different understanding of reality then we do nowadays.
And yet every society on the planet has moral standards, I'd even say it is a prerequisite for having a society. I'd even suggest that many animals have, at least in some sense, morallity.
Morality is a evolved trait, something that we require in order to function as part of a group. I'd almost find it insulting to think that without a God humans are incapable of developing a sense of morallity.
BlackCatBonz
Master Black Belt
Man did.....it's called religion.
Ray
Master Black Belt
The Manson family was a "group."
No... you are wrong... when I wont think its silly is when scientists can take an empty vaccum, make it explode, use what is formed in the explosion to make life out of nothing THEN turn it into a billion or so complex lifeforms.
Taking what we already have and making a protein chain? please.
A scientist calls out to god one day and says "hey god, I created life, mankind doesnt need you anymore"
God, curious, answers the scientists and says "really? ok, show me!"
So the scientist, smug says "Ok, well first I take this mud from the ground"
and god interupts him and says "no, no no, use your OWN dirt."
- Status
