Respect for the religious + religion - where does it start/stop?

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

It's fairly obvious by your posts.

Ah right...

bnt

The Religious are people too, entitled to the respect any human is, based on merit. Their religions, on the other hand, get no respect. So I keep running in to the problem of separation between person and religion: is it actually possible to respect the one and not the other? Will they permit that, or will they take any criticism of religion personally - and if they do, is that my problem?

InTheTrees

bnt wrote: »

The Religious are people too, entitled to the respect any human is, based on merit. Their religions, on the other hand, get no respect. So I keep running in to the problem of separation between person and religion: is it actually possible to respect the one and not the other? Will they permit that, or will they take any criticism of religion personally - and if they do, is that my problem?

I have a friend who can speak Klingon.

He's still a friend, but he also understands that he's going to be the subject of some playful ribbing.

katydid

bnt wrote: »

The Religious are people too, entitled to the respect any human is, based on merit. Their religions, on the other hand, get no respect. So I keep running in to the problem of separation between person and religion: is it actually possible to respect the one and not the other? Will they permit that, or will they take any criticism of religion personally - and if they do, is that my problem?

As a "religious person", as you would term it, I have no problem with someone questioning or criticising my beliefs, but I do have a problem with someone considering me stupid or deluded for holding them. There is an assumption on the part of many people that because THEY find the beliefs ridiculous, that the person holding them has to be a moron.

Cabaal

katydid wrote: »

As a "religious person", as you would term it, I have no problem with someone questioning or criticising my beliefs, but I do have a problem with someone considering me stupid or deluded for holding them. There is an assumption on the part of many people that because THEY find the beliefs ridiculous, that the person holding them has to be a moron.

So you're telling me that if you met a person who thought that little invisible elfs helped flowers grow during the summer months that you wouldn't doubt their intelligence?... Even just a little?

Keeping in mind there is zero evidence to support their believe in invisible elfs helping flowers grow, but yet they actually believe it is certainly the case that they do.

You think the person in question has no lapse in intelligence or mental capacity on any level?

swampgas

katydid wrote: »

As a "religious person", as you would term it, I have no problem with someone questioning or criticising my beliefs, but I do have a problem with someone considering me stupid or deluded for holding them. There is an assumption on the part of many people that because THEY find the beliefs ridiculous, that the person holding them has to be a moron.

I know quite a few very smart people who are religious, and seriously religious at that. I don't consider them to be stupid, but I do consider them to be deluded. Sometimes you have to be very smart to pull off the level of delusion that is required to square the insane nonsense of many religions with reality.

IMO it seems to come down to different modes of thinking. Some people can be rational and skeptical in some areas of life, but mystical and superstitious in others. In my experience the more people can compartmentalise their beliefs, the more likely they will be religious.

Whether the mental compartmentalisation is a result of religious indoctrination or not is an interesting question. Does religion train people to switch off the analytical parts of their brains? Or does a predisposition to compartmentalisation lead to an affinity for religious belief?

Smart religious people seem to work hard to rationalise their religious beliefs, rather than step back and accept what (IMO) should be the obvious truth. Quite often they seem to be emotionally invested in their religious beliefs, and would rather accept the craziness of religion than give up their religious safety blanket.

I think being religious in today's world, when there are so many better explanations for the reality we experience around us, is a sign of defective thinking, rather than of a defective brain. If you cannot stand back from religion and see it for what it is, then perhaps you simply lack the mental tools to remove the religious malware embedded in your head.

.

katydid

swampgas wrote: »

I know quite a few very smart people who are religious, and seriously religious at that. I don't consider them to be stupid, but I do consider them to be deluded. Sometimes you have to be very smart to pull off the level of delusion that is required to square the insane nonsense of many religions with reality.

IMO it seems to come down to different modes of thinking. Some people can be rational and skeptical in some areas of life, but mystical and superstitious in others. In my experience the more people can compartmentalise their beliefs, the more likely they will be religious.

Whether the mental compartmentalisation is a result of religious indoctrination or not is an interesting question. Does religion train people to switch off the analytical parts of their brains? Or does a predisposition to compartmentalisation lead to an affinity for religious belief?

Smart religious people seem to work hard to rationalise their religious beliefs, rather than step back and accept what (IMO) should be the obvious truth. Quite often they seem to be emotionally invested in their religious beliefs, and would rather accept the craziness of religion than give up their religious safety blanket.

I think being religious in today's world, when there are so many better explanations for the reality we experience around us, is a sign of defective thinking, rather than of a defective brain. If you cannot stand back from religion and see it for what it is, then perhaps you simply lack the mental tools to remove the religious malware embedded in your head.

.

Well, that shows exactly the kind of disrespect I'm talking about. It's patronising to say that "Sometimes you have to be very smart to pull off the level of delusion". Of course there are intelligent people who are deluded, but you are making a definitive judgement about something you are not in a position to make. If you say that someone who claims that the earth is flat is deluded you are correct, since it can be proven that they are wrong. But you can't say that definitely in relation to religion, since it doesn't make claims that are provable.

katydid

Cabaal wrote: »

So you're telling me that if you met a person who thought that little invisible elfs helped flowers grow during the summer months that you wouldn't doubt their intelligence?... Even just a little?

Keeping in mind there is zero evidence to support their believe in invisible elfs helping flowers grow, but yet they actually believe it is certainly the case that they do.

You think the person in question has no lapse in intelligence or mental capacity on any level?

A belief that there is a power beyond our understanding is not the same as believing in flower elves. There are degrees of belief just as there are degrees of intelligence; but those who categorise all believers of any kind as you do are the ones lacking in intelligence, because you demonstrate a simplistic analysis of a very complex concept.

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

Well, that shows exactly the kind of disrespect I'm talking about. It's patronising to say that "Sometimes you have to be very smart to pull off the level of delusion". Of course there are intelligent people who are deluded, but you are making a definitive judgement about something you are not in a position to make. If you say that someone who claims that the earth is flat is deluded you are correct, since it can be proven that they are wrong. But you can't say that definitely in relation to religion, since it doesn't make claims that are provable.

Were your born into your religion or did you come to it later in life , if I may ask ?

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

Were your born into your religion or did you come to it later in life , if I may ask ?

Well, I was born into Roman Catholicism, but it didn't do anything for me. I gave the whole thing a good bit of thought as a teenager and young twenty something and choose the path I am on now, which is Anglicanism. I like the solemnity and rituals, which help me focus spiritually, and I like the intellectual freedom it offers me to believe intelligently.

swampgas

katydid wrote: »

Well, that shows exactly the kind of disrespect I'm talking about. It's patronising to say that "Sometimes you have to be very smart to pull off the level of delusion". Of course there are intelligent people who are deluded, but you are making a definitive judgement about something you are not in a position to make. If you say that someone who claims that the earth is flat is deluded you are correct, since it can be proven that they are wrong.

Sure it's a bit patronising, but it's really hard not to be. Do you believe in angels, for example? If you don't, what do you think about people who do? Maybe those people would find your lack of belief patronising too?

Or if you do believe in angels, what's so odd about believing in fairies or elves?

But you can't say that definitely in relation to religion, since it doesn't make claims that are provable.

But that's the point - claims that are not provable aren't really worth much respect. There are an infinite number of unprovable claims out there, what makes you so sure that the few you've latched onto are any way valid?

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

Well, I was born into Roman Catholicism, but it didn't do anything for me. I gave the whole thing a good bit of thought as a teenager and young twenty something and choose the path I am on now, which is Anglicanism. I like the solemnity and rituals, which help me focus spiritually, and I like the intellectual freedom it offers me to believe intelligently.

Would you class that early introduction to religion as indoctrination ?

MrPudding

katydid wrote: »

Well, that shows exactly the kind of disrespect I'm talking about. It's patronising to say that "Sometimes you have to be very smart to pull off the level of delusion". Of course there are intelligent people who are deluded, but you are making a definitive judgement about something you are not in a position to make. If you say that someone who claims that the earth is flat is deluded you are correct, since it can be proven that they are wrong. But you can't say that definitely in relation to religion, since it doesn't make claims that are provable.

I am sorry, but why must we pussy foot around and be polite? The religious, at least some of them, are not afraid to class people as sinners, or tell people they are going to hell, or tell people what they can and cannot do with various parts of their bodies, or decide what consenting adults can do in the privacy of their own homes or indeed that people that don't believe in gods are not quite right... Why can I not say that I think people that believe in gods are delusional? I have been told I am delusional for not believing in gods, well one in particular. Was I offended? Not really. I thought it was kind of funny.

You say it is ok to call someone deluded when what they believe in can be proven to be incorrect. I would agree with this. But I would extend it ever so slightly. I would suggest that one can equally come to the conclusion that a person is deluded, at least to some extend, when they believe something when there is no real evidence to support the belief, and in fact everything we know tends to point that the belief is, well, a delusion.

The simple fact of the matter is this, it is my genuine held belief that what you believe is a delusion. now I seem to recall someone saying that when a belief is genuinely held it should get some kind of protection... I am sorry that you are offended that I think you beliefs are delusional, in much the same way as I suspect you are sorry that you think that people that believe in fairies and goblins, or islam or scientology or mormonism are delusional.

MrP

Brian Shanahan

katydid wrote: »

Well, I was born into Roman Catholicism, but it didn't do anything for me. I gave the whole thing a good bit of thought as a teenager and young twenty something and choose the path I am on now, which is Anglicanism. I like the solemnity and rituals, which help me focus spiritually, and I like the intellectual freedom it offers me to believe intelligently.

So you've not really changed your religion then. You've just went from the form of catholicism where your religious head is a rich old man who was elected by other rich old men, picked by his predecessors to the form of catholicism where your head is a rich old woman (for now) who had the blind luck to be born that way.

MrPudding

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So you've not really changed your religion then. You've just went from the form of catholicism where your religious head is a rich old man who was elected by other rich old men, picked by his predecessors to the form of catholicism where your head is a rich old woman (for now) who had the blind luck to be born that way.

Personally I think it is a little like a la carte catholicism, though with less effort. Rather than having to go through the chore of choosing which RCC bits to believe and which to discard, anglicanism provides a kind of shortcut to an inoffensive, much easier to be 'good at' version of that religion, a 'saver menu' version, rather than 'a la cart', if you will. I am sure she is lovin' it.

MrP

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

Well, that shows exactly the kind of disrespect I'm talking about. It's patronising to say that "Sometimes you have to be very smart to pull off the level of delusion". Of course there are intelligent people who are deluded, but you are making a definitive judgement about something you are not in a position to make. If you say that someone who claims that the earth is flat is deluded you are correct, since it can be proven that they are wrong. But you can't say that definitely in relation to religion, since it doesn't make claims that are provable.

katydid wrote: »

Well, I was born into Roman Catholicism, but it didn't do anything for me. I gave the whole thing a good bit of thought as a teenager and young twenty something and choose the path I am on now, which is Anglicanism. I like the solemnity and rituals, which help me focus spiritually, and I like the intellectual freedom it offers me to believe intelligently.

Hmmmm, conflict.....

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

Hmmmm, conflict.....

Where?

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

Where?

Believing intelligently in things that can't be proven. There.

katydid

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So you've not really changed your religion then. You've just went from the form of catholicism where your religious head is a rich old man who was elected by other rich old men, picked by his predecessors to the form of catholicism where your head is a rich old woman (for now) who had the blind luck to be born that way.

I never said I changed my religion. I didn't stop being Christian, I just found a way of expressing it that makes more sense to me.

Who is this " rich old man who was elected by other rich old men, picked by his predecessors to the form of catholicism where your head is a rich old woman".
Last time I looked, Richard Clarke wasn't particularly old, and I doubt if he's very rich, no more than those who elected him. The stipend for a clergyman or woman in the CofI is under €40k, depending on their position, experience etc, and although I don't know the pay for a bishop, it wouldn't be hugely more. I've no idea what old woman you're talking about.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

Believing intelligently in things that can't be proven. There.

I don't see a conflict. If I were arguing that they were provable, THAT would be a conflict.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

I don't see a conflict. If I were arguing that they were provable, THAT would be a conflict.

There is no/zero/nada evidence for the supernatural. Not in any religion or practice. To carry on believing in the face of this therefore, requires the abandonment of intelligence.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

There is no/zero/nada evidence for the supernatural. Not in any religion or practice. To carry on believing in the face of this therefore, requires the abandonment of intelligence.

Can you provide evidence that it DOESN'T exist?

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

Can you provide evidence that it DOESN'T exist?

Can you provide evidence that you've picked the correct denomination to follow?

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

Can you provide evidence that it DOESN'T exist?

It's impossible to prove a negative, hence the burden on the claimant.

To quote Martin Luther

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason."

To believe without proof is not intelligent belief, it's faith.

Cabaal

katydid wrote: »

Can you provide evidence that it DOESN'T exist?

Can you provide evidence to show that our galaxy doesn't sit on the backs of four elephants that stand on the back of a giant turtle as it travels through the void of space?

Can you prove that those invisible elfs I mentioned previously don't exist?

katydid

Cabaal wrote: »

Can you provide evidence to show that our galaxy doesn't sit on the backs of four elephants that stand on the back of a giant turtle as it travels through the void of space?

Can you prove that those invisible elfs I mentioned previously don't exist?

I note that you haven't answered the question I asked...

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

It's impossible to prove a negative, hence the burden on the claimant.

To quote Martin Luther

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason."

To believe without proof is not intelligent belief, it's faith.

I'm not trying to prove anything. You are the one talking about proof. Faith can be blind faith, or it can be an intelligent conviction that there are dimensions beyond our comprehension.

katydid

lazygal wrote: »

Can you provide evidence that you've picked the correct denomination to follow?

No. Al I know is that it't the right one for me.

iguana

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So you've not really changed your religion then. You've just went from the form of catholicism where your religious head is a rich old man who was elected by other rich old men, picked by his predecessors to the form of catholicism where your head is a rich old woman (for now) who had the blind luck to be born that way.

MrPudding wrote: »

Personally I think it is a little like a la carte catholicism, though with less effort. Rather than having to go through the chore of choosing which RCC bits to believe and which to discard, anglicanism provides a kind of shortcut to an inoffensive, much easier to be 'good at' version of that religion, a 'saver menu' version, rather than 'a la cart', if you will. I am sure she is lovin' it.

I think these comments are a bit unfair. It's often pointed out on this forum that almost all Catholics in Ireland, when questioned about their beliefs are actually pretty much Anglican but they still insist that they are Catholic (because they just can't accept being semi-Protestant) so they continue to give power to the RCC in Ireland even though they aren't believers. I think an awful lot would change for the better in this country if "Catholics" who don't believe in Papal infalibility, transubstantiation and the virgin birth but still believe (or want to believe) in God and the divinity of Jesus would do as katydid has done.

I can't respect katydid's beliefs, they are just too ludicrous to me. But I do respect her for examining her beliefs and accepting that if she didn't believe in some of the central tenants of the religion she was raised in, she should leave it and find one more suited to what she does believe.

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

No. Al I know is that it't the right one for me.

Are you the poster that has a problem with the Queen of England being head of State ?

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

No. Al I know is that it't the right one for me.

How?

katydid wrote: »

. Faith can be blind faith, or it can be an intelligent conviction that there are dimensions beyond our comprehension..

You can't have intelligent conviction based on nothing.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

How?


You can't have intelligent conviction based on nothing.

I know it's the right one for me because it works for me. That's all I need to know.

I agree absolutely, you can't have intelligent conviction based on nothing.

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

Are you the poster that has a problem with the Queen of England being head of State ?

Well, I have a problem with monarchy per se. What relevance does that have to this discussion?

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

I know it's the right one for me because it works for me. That's all I need to know.


How does it "work for you"?

katydid wrote: »

I agree absolutely, you can't have intelligent conviction based on nothing.

Yet you referenced unprovable claims by the church earlier. Which is it? Do you have proof or not? If you have faith in unproven and unprovable claims, your earlier reference to intelligent belief cannot be true.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

katydid wrote: »

I know it's the right one for me because it works for me. That's all I need to know.


How does it "work for you"?




Yet you referenced unprovable claims by the church earlier. Which is it? Do you have proof or not? If you have faith in unproven and unprovable claims, your earlier reference to intelligent belief cannot be true.

How do you mean, "how does it work for you"? It works for me, that's all I can say. When something works, it works.

Religion doesn't make claims as facts. It clearly can't prove them; they are BELIEFS that their followers can choose to believe or not. That is why, in the Christian case, the prayer which outlines Christian tenets begins "I believe".

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

How do you mean, "how does it work for you"? It works for me, that's all I can say. When something works, it works. ".

Explain why/how?

katydid wrote: »

Religion doesn't make claims as facts. It clearly can't prove them; they are BELIEFS that their followers can choose to believe or not. That is why, in the Christian case, the prayer which outlines Christian tenets begins "I believe".

Well not all beliefs are optional when you sign up to a church, but that's another matter.

Seeing as you are back talking about unprovable claims, would you like to retract your "intelligent belief" comment?

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

Explain why/how?



Well not all beliefs are optional when you sign up to a church, but that's another matter.

Seeing as you are back talking about unprovable claims, would you like to retract your "intelligent belief" comment?

I can't explain how or why. Can you explain why your relationship with your other half works?

I'm not backtracking on anything. YOU raised the question of proof...

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

I can't explain how or why. Can you explain why your relationship with your other half works?...

As that's based on a relationship with a person who exists I'm not seeing the similarity.

katydid wrote: »

I'm not backtracking on anything. YOU raised the question of proof...

If you believe without proof that cannot be intelligent belief. You claim to enjoy "intelligent belief" which cannot exist without proof.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

As that's based on a relationship with a person who exists I'm not seeing the similarity.



If you believe without proof that cannot be intelligent belief. You claim to enjoy "intelligent belief" which cannot exist without proof.

It's based on my relationship with the Anglican church in Ireland. It's quite tangible.

YOU say that belief without proof can't be intelligent belief. That is your OPINION.

Brian Shanahan

katydid wrote: »

I never said I changed my religion. I didn't stop being Christian, I just found a way of expressing it that makes more sense to me.

Who is this " rich old man who was elected by other rich old men, picked by his predecessors to the form of catholicism where your head is a rich old woman".
Last time I looked, Richard Clarke wasn't particularly old, and I doubt if he's very rich, no more than those who elected him. The stipend for a clergyman or woman in the CofI is under €40k, depending on their position, experience etc, and although I don't know the pay for a bishop, it wouldn't be hugely more. I've no idea what old woman you're talking about.

The head of the Anglican communion is Elizabeth von Saxe Coburg-und-Gotha, etc. etc. etc. Because of this she is also Richard Clarke's boss (the only Anglican church which doesn't bow to the reigning UK monarch is the Episcopalian church in the US).That is the person to whom I refer.

katydid

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The head of the Anglican communion is Elizabeth von Saxe Coburg-und-Gotha, etc. etc. etc. Because of this she is also Richard Clarke's boss (the only Anglican church which doesn't bow to the reigning UK monarch is the Episcopalian church in the US).That is the person to whom I refer.

No, the head of the Anglican communion is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Queen Elizabeth is the head of the Church of England, which is an independent church within the Anglican communion. The Church of Ireland is also an independent member.

robindch

katydid wrote: »

Religion doesn't make claims as facts. It clearly can't prove them; they are BELIEFS that their followers can choose to believe or not. That is why, in the Christian case, the prayer which outlines Christian tenets begins "I believe".

I'm fascinated katydid - what's your job outside of boards? You don't need to answer the question of course, but you've a range of talents which aren't all that common here and I'm wondering how you put them to work in the real world.

obplayer

robindch wrote: »

I'm fascinated katydid - what's your job outside of boards? You don't need to answer the question of course, but you've a range of talents which aren't all that common here and I'm wondering how you put them to work in the real world.

Let's hope she / he's not a scientist like JC.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

It's based on my relationship with the Anglican church in Ireland. It's quite tangible..

Then you should be able to explain why you follow that church.

katydid wrote: »

YOU say that belief without proof can't be intelligent belief. That is your OPINION.

Not at all. Belief without proof=faith. You cannot believe "intelligently" without proof.

Bandana boy

MrPudding wrote: »

I am sorry, but why must we pussy foot around and be polite? The religious, at least some of them, are not afraid to class people as sinners, or tell people they are going to hell, or tell people what they can and cannot do with various parts of their bodies, or decide what consenting adults can do in the privacy of their own homes or indeed that people that don't believe in gods are not quite right... Why can I not say that I think people that believe in gods are delusional? I have been told I am delusional for not believing in gods, well one in particular. Was I offended? Not really. I thought it was kind of funny.

You say it is ok to call someone deluded when what they believe in can be proven to be incorrect. I would agree with this. But I would extend it ever so slightly. I would suggest that one can equally come to the conclusion that a person is deluded, at least to some extend, when they believe something when there is no real evidence to support the belief, and in fact everything we know tends to point that the belief is, well, a delusion.

The simple fact of the matter is this, it is my genuine held belief that what you believe is a delusion. now I seem to recall someone saying that when a belief is genuinely held it should get some kind of protection... I am sorry that you are offended that I think you beliefs are delusional, in much the same way as I suspect you are sorry that you think that people that believe in fairies and goblins, or islam or scientology or mormonism are delusional.

MrP

Because two wrongs don't make a right

swampgas

Bandana boy wrote: »

Because two wrongs don't make a right

But if someone genuinely believes that I'm going to burn in hell, and they tell me this, isn't it equally valid for me to tell them that I genuinely believe that they are deluded?

Is that not just two people exchanging views, rather than "two wrongs"?

swampgas

katydid wrote: »

YOU say that belief without proof can't be intelligent belief. That is your OPINION.

But when believing something without proof, let's call it having faith, you are deliberately choosing to ignore evidence, or to ignore lack of evidence. Basically you want to believe it so you decide you do. That's faith.

You can believe anything with faith, that's why there are so many different religions. I can't really see how you can call it intelligent though - if anything you have selected CofI based on a a gut feel / emotional response rather than what I would consider an intelligent analysis.

lazygal

robindch wrote: »

I'm fascinated katydid - what's your job outside of boards? You don't need to answer the question of course, but you've a range of talents which aren't all that common here and I'm wondering how you put them to work in the real world.

I'm sure I read a post alluding to her working in a secondary school.

katydid

swampgas wrote: »

But when believing something without proof, let's call it having faith, you are deliberately choosing to ignore evidence, or to ignore lack of evidence. Basically you want to believe it so you decide you do. That's faith.

You can believe anything with faith, that's why there are so many different religions. I can't really see how you can call it intelligent though - if anything you have selected CofI based on a a gut feel / emotional response rather than what I would consider an intelligent analysis.

There's lack of evidence in both directions. Those who state DEFINITIVELY that there is no God have no proof. Those who state there is a God don't try to offer proof because they know there is no such proof.

So who are the people making unsubstantiated claims????

And you patronise ME?

swampgas

katydid wrote: »

There's lack of evidence in both directions. Those who state DEFINITIVELY that there is no God have no proof. Those who state there is a God don't try to offer proof because they know there is no such proof.

So who are the people making unsubstantiated claims????

And you patronise ME?

Apologies if I'm coming across as patronising.

Of course there is no proof that God doesn't exist - there is absence of proof that he does exist. There is no way to prove that unicorns don't exist either.

If there is no proof that something exists, surely the safest assumption to make is that it really doesn't exist? Why pick just one thing of the many that have no supporting evidence, and run with that?