Opposing superstition

[Ender]

I never stated of course that my religion is anymore justified than any other. I believe each individual has the right to practice their faith or lack of faith as they see fit. I have no authority to criticize their beliefs, as I am standing as blind as they. I can present my own view, for them to accept or reject, but anything else would be foolish. The only exception is when the practice of belief interferes with the basic rights that ensure we are all free to live our own conscience, as human sacrifice clearly does.

In any case, what you are describing is certainly not skeptical examination. It is mindless scapegoating. Human sacrifice in Africa has nothing to do with Shintoism in Japan or Mormonism in Utah. Mengele has nothing to do with Watson and Crick, or Einstein. Yes, religion, like science, like politics, like philosophy, like anything else can be perverted. But to use that as a bludgeon against all such thought serves only to drive one's personal agenda against religion, and does not represent any fundamental truth.

[RickSp]

I never stated of course that my religion is anymore justified than any other.

As Stephen Roberts observed: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

From my perspective all superstitions and religions look awfully similar.

[Jack]

I never stated of course that my religion is anymore justified than any other. I believe each individual has the right to practice their faith or lack of faith as they see fit. I have no authority to criticize their beliefs...Human sacrifice in Africa has nothing to do with Shintoism in Japan or Mormonism in Utah.

Sam Harris, in The End of Faith, articulates better than I the issues raised by this tolerance shown by liberal and moderate Christians and mirrored by many atheists. Of course everyone has a right to believe what they will. That does not mean that what they believe is exempt from criticism, skepticism and challenge. They should still be able to present at least a reason, if not evidence, for their beliefs. The liberal and moderate stance that we can't challenge or criticize any religious belief held by anyone is exactly what prevents people of good conscience from speaking out against atrocities committed in the name of belief. In that way it's complicit in the crimes committed against the innocent. By giving "inoffensive" liberal and moderate religious belief a pass from critique we allow extreme positions to run rampant.

Mengele has nothing to do with Watson and Crick, or Einstein.

Not directly, since I don't believe he was a physicist or geneticist, but I see what you're trying to say. It is precisely the possibility that science can be perverted and used against humanity that requires its findings to be subjected to peer review and open challenge. If we gave science the same pass from criticism that you ask for religious belief, we'd be creating the perfect condition for abuses to exist unchallenged.

While both science and religion may be trying to discover fundamental truths, I don't believe either can lie claim to one.

[Ender]

As Stephen Roberts observed: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

From my perspective all superstitions and religions look awfully similar.

The problem with that is I dismiss nothing out of hand. And I'm not asking you to recognize my religion as superior.

Jack

Sam Harris, in The End of Faith, articulates better than I the issues raised by this tolerance shown by liberal and moderate Christians and mirrored by many atheists. Of course everyone has a right to believe what they will. That does not mean that what they believe is exempt from criticism, skepticism and challenge. They should still be able to present at least a reason, if not evidence, for their beliefs. The liberal and moderate stance that we can't challenge or criticize any religious belief held by anyone is exactly what prevents people of good conscience from speaking out against atrocities committed in the name of belief. In that way it's complicit in the crimes committed against the innocent. By giving "inoffensive" liberal and moderate religious belief a pass from critique we allow extreme positions to run rampant.

The only time an individual should be asked to justify their faith to another man is if he is trying to convert him. Sam Harris's justifications not withstanding, a man's beliefs are personal and he has no right to demand he defend them. I specifically stated that the only time it is okay to call out another person's beliefs are when those beliefs interfere with basic human rights. Harris can say whatever makes his personal biases easier to swallow, but I can't take seriously the argument that the only way we can stop genocide is by telling our Methodist neighbors to stop going to Church. They will rightfully tell us to get off their lawn and the killings will continue.

Don't forget, intolerance can be justified from many angles, but it can never hide its ugliness. It is easy to look at human sacrifices in Africa and imagine how it can be used to push our own personal beliefs, be they religious or non-religious. It is hard to look at them in a societal context and recognize the numerous factors that contribute to such acts and to forget any thoughts of manipulating the circumstance.

Not directly, since I don't believe he was a physicist or geneticist, but I see what you're trying to say. It is precisely the possibility that science can be perverted and used against humanity that requires its findings to be subjected to peer review and open challenge. If we gave science the same pass from criticism that you ask for religious belief, we'd be creating the perfect condition for abuses to exist unchallenged.

While both science and religion may be trying to discover fundamental truths, I don't believe either can lie claim to one.

But we never criticize science itself, as a pursuit, because we recognize the power it holds in society and the belief many have in its saving graces. We would be hypocrites if we did, because we cannot live without the advances it grants us. That's my point. Religion is no different. Though you may personally reject it, a perfectly acceptable path, it provides the same service in a different way.

[Jack]

The only time an individual should be asked to justify their faith to another man is if he is trying to convert him. Sam Harris's justifications not withstanding, a man's beliefs are personal and he has no right to demand he defend them.

You've completely missed my point. I didn't say a believer has to defend his faith. I said that his faith is not exempt from criticism and skeptical examination by others. Believe what you will, but I have every right to question and even disparage your beliefs, just as you do mine.

[Ender]

"They should still be able to present at least a reason, if not evidence, for their beliefs."

This statement seemed to indicate a defense was required. Nevertheless, the right to disparage is not in question. I would never question your right to do just about anything you please.

[Jack]

You have a point, I was incomplete with that thought. I was thinking of self-justification. A person ought to be able to understand and provide a reason to themselves regarding their beliefs.

Apologies.

[Questatement]

Whatever you were attempting to communicate, the point remains - witch burning which, as Izak correctly points out, occurred in both the American colonies and in Europe is directly comparable with the examples given by Jack. They were directed by ministers and priests. Superstition run amock.

While you are comparing similarities, differences would also be in order. For instance, I would find most other religions, including atheistic-related crimes against humanity, grossly more destructive in the form of human life than Protestantism since the latter came into existence.

[RickSp]

While you are comparing similarities, differences would also be in order. For instance, I would find most other religions, including atheistic-related crimes against humanity, grossly more destructive in the form of human life than Protestantism since the latter came into existence.

Of course you would as you tend to ignore the crimes of Christianity in general and Protestantism in particular. None of which changes the reality or the history.

[Questatement]

Speaking of Protestantism, no one has provided any besides the Salem witch trials. Care to add to that?

[RickSp]

The Wars of the Reformation come to mind, though you have denied the role of Protestants in previous posts and claimed that Catholics weren't Christian if I recall.

[Questatement]

And where do you find crimes against humanity (as it is classically defined) within these wars on the part of Protestants related to their (then) new-held religious beliefs?

Be specific please.