Posted by Steve-
In past religious discussions, I have heard many religious moderates mention the fact that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and that it is not my right to challenged their beliefs. And herein lies the problem. A belief and an opinion are not the same thing. An opinion refers to a personally held attitude which says nothing about the concrete state of things. For example, it is my opinion that sausage pizza is better than mushroom pizza. Here I am not attempting to demonstrate some inherent truth, but simple stating a personal taste representing a very local rather than universal reality. Further, opinions require no additional evidence beyond the statements themselves, for once again, one is not attempting to demonstrate a truth that extends beyond oneself. A belief, on the other hand is a statement concerning a perceived reality which may or may not turn out to be correct. True, a belief does not have to rest upon strong evidence when first stated, BUT if strong evidence should arises that contradicts such a belief, it should be strongly reconsidered and perhaps reject. Example: a woman claims to believe that her husband is faithful. Now, either he is or he isn't. If this same woman were to stumble upon her husband and another woman having sexual intercourse, her earlier stated belief would have been proven false. She can hold onto this belief if she so chooses, however, she can no longer claim this it to be reliable, correct, valuable, or what have you. Further, she can no longer expect that stating her bunk belief aloud will not be met with legitimate contradiction.
Thus, unlike opinions, religious beliefs can be demonstrated to be false, or at least very likely false, should enough evidence arise to do so. When someone tells me that they believe in the existence of a omnipotent, benevolent, anthropomorphic god they have made a statement concerning a supposed reality, which can be demonstrated to be true or false. I believe that the latter shall end up being the case.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Did you decide continued
Posted by Steve-
I'd like to answer a question raised in response to Brandon's ealier post. What do we think about cultural distinctions in general (Black, Italian, etc.). Becoming integrated in, influenced and molded by a culture is an inevitability, and in fact, necessity of human development. There is nothing wrong with speaking French if you were raised by French speaking parents or in a French community. What is inappropriate, and what is promoted by the dogma of religion, is the idea that our cultural preferences represent some sort of concrete reality, that the way We do things is fundamentally correct. When a Catholic refers to the saving grace of Jesus Christ son of God on high, and truly believes in this reality, the cultural issue arises. Either he must reject the reality that had he been raised under different circumstances (say the son of an Orthodox Jew)he would believe otherwise or he must admit to naivite on a grand scale: "I realize that, had my parents been Muslims I'd be a Muslim and reject Christ, but lucky me, my folks got it right!" (Further, he may want to ask what those poor saps who happened to be born prior to the rise of Christianity did to deserve missing out on the grand revelation [the Christian God is supposed to love all his creations equally]).
An analogous situation would be the Ohio State/Michigan rivalry. Is it reasonable to be a passionate alum who boos the other team and scorns their symbols? Sure. Is it reasonable to truly and honestly hate another person, or believe that one school is fundamentally inferior to the other? No. For in the latter circumstance, you fail to realize that, had you been born on the other side of the border, the coin would be flipped. I should point out, however, that this is not a direct analogy, for the Universities of Michigan and Ohio State represent concrete, verifiable realities. On could point out, for example, that Michigan Stadium is lager than Ohio Stadium.
I'd like to answer a question raised in response to Brandon's ealier post. What do we think about cultural distinctions in general (Black, Italian, etc.). Becoming integrated in, influenced and molded by a culture is an inevitability, and in fact, necessity of human development. There is nothing wrong with speaking French if you were raised by French speaking parents or in a French community. What is inappropriate, and what is promoted by the dogma of religion, is the idea that our cultural preferences represent some sort of concrete reality, that the way We do things is fundamentally correct. When a Catholic refers to the saving grace of Jesus Christ son of God on high, and truly believes in this reality, the cultural issue arises. Either he must reject the reality that had he been raised under different circumstances (say the son of an Orthodox Jew)he would believe otherwise or he must admit to naivite on a grand scale: "I realize that, had my parents been Muslims I'd be a Muslim and reject Christ, but lucky me, my folks got it right!" (Further, he may want to ask what those poor saps who happened to be born prior to the rise of Christianity did to deserve missing out on the grand revelation [the Christian God is supposed to love all his creations equally]).
An analogous situation would be the Ohio State/Michigan rivalry. Is it reasonable to be a passionate alum who boos the other team and scorns their symbols? Sure. Is it reasonable to truly and honestly hate another person, or believe that one school is fundamentally inferior to the other? No. For in the latter circumstance, you fail to realize that, had you been born on the other side of the border, the coin would be flipped. I should point out, however, that this is not a direct analogy, for the Universities of Michigan and Ohio State represent concrete, verifiable realities. On could point out, for example, that Michigan Stadium is lager than Ohio Stadium.
Did You Really Decide?
Posted By Brandon
Concerning other people's children I would often hear my mom claim, "if those kids were raised in my house, things would be quite different". She was telling the truth! If the neighbor's child grew up in my house he would have watched Entertainment Tonight at 7:30pm and gone to bed at his age appropriate bedtime (which happened to be arbitrarily decided). If that other person's child was French and adopted by my parents shortly following birth, his native tongue would be English, NOT French. Is this so because the child has made a cognitive decision that English makes more sense to him? No, his environment made the decision for him. It seems fair to say that the previous examples gives us a small glimpse of socialization's influence. To take the same idea a bit further, if any child once born to (insert your favorite religious conviction) _______ parents were to be raised by my parents he or she would be a reform Jew. Same as in the language example, does the child have any say; did the child decide that any one dogma made most sense to them? Probably not. You may be thinking that is only how it is in your family. If you are of that mind, I challenge you to explain your own subscription to faith and that of your parents and their parents before them. I am willing to bet that there is a certain pattern.
Concerning other people's children I would often hear my mom claim, "if those kids were raised in my house, things would be quite different". She was telling the truth! If the neighbor's child grew up in my house he would have watched Entertainment Tonight at 7:30pm and gone to bed at his age appropriate bedtime (which happened to be arbitrarily decided). If that other person's child was French and adopted by my parents shortly following birth, his native tongue would be English, NOT French. Is this so because the child has made a cognitive decision that English makes more sense to him? No, his environment made the decision for him. It seems fair to say that the previous examples gives us a small glimpse of socialization's influence. To take the same idea a bit further, if any child once born to (insert your favorite religious conviction) _______ parents were to be raised by my parents he or she would be a reform Jew. Same as in the language example, does the child have any say; did the child decide that any one dogma made most sense to them? Probably not. You may be thinking that is only how it is in your family. If you are of that mind, I challenge you to explain your own subscription to faith and that of your parents and their parents before them. I am willing to bet that there is a certain pattern.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
What is dogma debunked?
Posted by Steve-
I'd like to take the opportunity to use this first post to lay out a sort of mission statement for this blog. Readers may be wondering who Brandon and I are, and why we've decided to create a blog dedicated to debunking dogma. I met Brandon during my freshman year of college at Ohio State. We had both joined Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity, and quickly became good friends. To make a long story short, Brandon and I were two people who came into college belonging to "traditional" religious sects (I was raised a Catholic, while Brandon was raised a Jew), but left as athiests. The motivating factors which led to our transformations shall be elucidated in later posts, but suffice it to say, the process was both difficult and intensely considered. We have since come to the conclusion that organized religion, belief in a benevolent, supreme being, and more to the point, any belief system which lacks reasonable, supporting evidence (dogma) is utterly bunk, worthless, without defense, and quite frequently dangerous. Through this blog, Brandon and I hope to lay out the arguments that support the above statements, and ultimately demonstrate that irrational belief systems have no place in modern society. We hope that our readers will seriously consider what we have to say, and yes, we strongly encourage you to try to find flaws in our arguments and bring them to our attention. We are confident in our abilities to respond, and look forward to the hopefully rich discussions to come. Before signing off, I would like to address one question that frequently arises and deserves mention at this early juncture: what's the big deal in allowing people the right to believe in whatever makes them happy? To put it differently, why are Brandon and I bothered by the fact that some people like to believe in their chosen dogma, and why do we feel it necessary to point out the fallacy of their beliefs? We feel and hope to demonstrate that the dogma debate is the quintessential issue of our time. If every person on Earth agreed to keep their personal religion within the confines of their own minds and not allow it to influence any aspect of their interactions with others, all would be honkey dorey. This however is neither now, nor ever has been the case. Dogma directly influences the actions of believers, and in an era of modern scientific knowledge and technology, this influence could directly lead to the end of mankind. For this reason above all others, Brandon and I feel that what we have to say must be heard. Thanks; much more to come.
I'd like to take the opportunity to use this first post to lay out a sort of mission statement for this blog. Readers may be wondering who Brandon and I are, and why we've decided to create a blog dedicated to debunking dogma. I met Brandon during my freshman year of college at Ohio State. We had both joined Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity, and quickly became good friends. To make a long story short, Brandon and I were two people who came into college belonging to "traditional" religious sects (I was raised a Catholic, while Brandon was raised a Jew), but left as athiests. The motivating factors which led to our transformations shall be elucidated in later posts, but suffice it to say, the process was both difficult and intensely considered. We have since come to the conclusion that organized religion, belief in a benevolent, supreme being, and more to the point, any belief system which lacks reasonable, supporting evidence (dogma) is utterly bunk, worthless, without defense, and quite frequently dangerous. Through this blog, Brandon and I hope to lay out the arguments that support the above statements, and ultimately demonstrate that irrational belief systems have no place in modern society. We hope that our readers will seriously consider what we have to say, and yes, we strongly encourage you to try to find flaws in our arguments and bring them to our attention. We are confident in our abilities to respond, and look forward to the hopefully rich discussions to come. Before signing off, I would like to address one question that frequently arises and deserves mention at this early juncture: what's the big deal in allowing people the right to believe in whatever makes them happy? To put it differently, why are Brandon and I bothered by the fact that some people like to believe in their chosen dogma, and why do we feel it necessary to point out the fallacy of their beliefs? We feel and hope to demonstrate that the dogma debate is the quintessential issue of our time. If every person on Earth agreed to keep their personal religion within the confines of their own minds and not allow it to influence any aspect of their interactions with others, all would be honkey dorey. This however is neither now, nor ever has been the case. Dogma directly influences the actions of believers, and in an era of modern scientific knowledge and technology, this influence could directly lead to the end of mankind. For this reason above all others, Brandon and I feel that what we have to say must be heard. Thanks; much more to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)