WasatchMan Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 The purpose of this topic is to discuss why some philosophical people feel the need to extend an olive branch to religious people. For religion rests on faith, superstition, and a metaphysical position that is anti-reality. To go against reality is to go against life, logic, and reason, and as such, religion is antithetical to philosophy. Ask yourself, would you tolerate someones opinion who wanted to make an argument to you about science and told you that his proof rested on faith? Would you tell someone that they had no place in science? What would you tell someone who’s response to you was that you shouldn’t berate or alienate people who believe that faith is part of the scientific method? To me faith has no place in philosophy, or any conversation around philosophy, just like it has in science or any of its theorems, hypothesis, or proofs. We should not make these ideas feel welcome, for this is not an aesthetic preference. This is a fundamental way on how you view reality, and therefore affects all of the branches of philosophy. People who promote philosophy are enemies of religion. We should be shaming religious ideas wherever they arise, not patting them on the back for agreeing with us on other ideas and just acting like it’s a difference of opinion on this certain issue. What are your thoughts? Should we be pragmatic and hold out olive branches and try to pull people out of a deep sticky pool of nonsense, or should we shame and isolate, hoping our leadership and non-wavering support of reason shock people out of their faith?
shirgall Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 At first blush, we should always judge arguments on their merits and not the personalities and beliefs of those that are making them. If they were making faith claims in philosophy that's not going to work. Just because they believe in the the Sky Ghosts doesn't make "all men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal" wrong. This is totally different than the million monkeys writing Shakespeare, because there are plenty of otherwise religious philosophers and scientists that have something interesting to tell us. 1
MMX2010 Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Religious arguments are more easily falsifiable than all of these: (1) Women are naturally nurturing towards children, but society makes their nurturing instinct corrupt. (2) Women are naturally loyal to men, but society makes their loyalty corrupt. (3) We shouldn't discriminate against anyone who has tattoos or piercings. (4) It is never okay to laugh at an abused child. (5) It is never okay to refuse association with transgender individuals, solely because they make you uncomfortable. (6) Any American who wants restricted immigration based on the racial composition of immigrants is automatically racist and evil. Those six arguments are examples of NOT religiously-motivated perspectives which, when I've argued them on the FDR message board, have been met with hostile, non-philosophical rejections. Some of those rejections refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence supporting my perspective. So if you think "religion" is so fundamentally "anti-reality" that we should never extend an olive branch to anyone who promotes it, then what should we do to anyone who promotes just one of those six arguments above? 2 3
WasatchMan Posted January 12, 2015 Author Posted January 12, 2015 At first blush, we should always judge arguments on their merits and not the personalities and beliefs of those that are making them. If they were making faith claims in philosophy that's not going to work. Just because they believe in the the Sky Ghosts doesn't make "all men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal" wrong. This is totally different than the million monkeys writing Shakespeare, because there are plenty of otherwise religious philosophers and scientists that have something interesting to tell us. I can see your point here and maybe I wasn't clear. I am not saying that religious people should be always shunned for they can be very rational away from religion. I mean any talk of religion should always be treated like it is: non-sense. Religious arguments are more easily falsifiable than all of these: (1) Women are naturally nurturing towards children, but society makes their nurturing instinct corrupt. (2) Women are naturally loyal to men, but society makes their loyalty corrupt. (3) We shouldn't discriminate against anyone who has tattoos or piercings. (4) It is never okay to laugh at an abused child. (5) It is never okay to refuse association with transgender individuals, solely because they make you uncomfortable. (6) Any American who wants restricted immigration based on the racial composition of immigrants is automatically racist and evil. Those six arguments are examples of NOT religiously-motivated perspectives which, when I've argued them on the FDR message board, have been met with hostile, non-philosophical rejections. Some of those rejections refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence supporting my perspective. So if you think "religion" is so fundamentally "anti-reality" that we should never extend an olive branch to anyone who promotes it, then what should we do to anyone who promotes just one of those six arguments above? I understand it can be frustrating at times to communicate an argument to people who do not want to get it, especially when a lot of people have already made up their mind or are emotionally attached to their perspective. Unfortunately, I don't have any advice for how to get around this. However, the fundamentally "anti-reality" side of religion is not something that you can just brush over. What makes religion different than people who just aren't convinced by your arguments are they accept as a premise that faith is an acceptable answer to metaphysics and epistemology. They come to every discussion with reality already subjugated to their whim, and willfully admit it. They have admitted they don't play by the rules, so why should we play with them? Would you play basketball with someone who said they can use a hockey stick to bash out your knees every time you go to the basket?
MMX2010 Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 However, the fundamentally "anti-reality" side of religion is not something that you can just brush over. What makes religion different than people who just aren't convinced by your arguments are they accept as a premise that faith is an acceptable answer to metaphysics and epistemology. They come to every discussion with reality already subjugated to their whim, and willfully admit it. The people who weren't convinced by the arguments I mentioned above also arrived to the discussion with both pre-conceived notions that were impossible to disprove AND with "faith-based" arguments that were (wrongly) deemed acceptable. But their "faith-based" arguments were meant to provide answers to science-based discussions, which is, in my opinion, a far greater crime than using faith/religion to answer metaphysics and epistemology questions. I couldn't get one chick to say, "Even though I, personally, wouldn't laugh at an abused child the same way you laughed at an abused child in this thread, I must admit that the person you laughed at found it helpful." To my mind, she isn't religious and fully believes in the NAP - but she was non-convincible in the same way that religious idiots are non-convincible. That is just one of many examples I've encountered, so I don't think you can generalize "faith based" problems to religious people. If anything, the fact that religious arguments are so easily debunked makes me prefer a religious idiot to a non-religious one. ------------------------------------- Edited to add: I ask myself why these sorts of ridiculous resistances happen, and I believe it's one, some, or all of the following: (1) The promotion of gender equality in a democratic environment has become subtly twisted to the promotion of personal equality in all scientific discussions. Roughly translated, "Because we live in a political system wherein everyone gets one vote, it is always true that a non-scientifically acquired opinion is equally likely to be true as a scientifically-acquired opinion." OR "Because I have the right to do whatever I want so long as no one is obviously harmed, including the right to reject a scientifically-supported perspective that I, personally, find uncomfortable, then you've no right to forecast that my rejection will make me less happy, less romantically valuable, less intelligent, or less-of-anything. You have to acknowledge that I'm equally like to be happy and successful." (2) The presence of women on this message board enables certain men to seek out women for romantic companionship. This isn't necessarily bad, but it does allow certain men to accept and promote "pro-female" attitudes and opinions in the hopes of getting laid. My other preferred message board is the Roosh V Forum, which strictly limits (to near zero) the postings of women and homosexuals. On the one hand, you'd predict that such a "sausage fest" would be boring. But what happens is that the absence of women and homosexuals means that the discussions are more free. They get heated, especially with regard to race, Islam, marriage, and women's essential nature - but you get both a more diverse range of opinions AND a civility with which those opinions are presented. There, I find myself both speaking less (out of respect for the elders of the forum) and censoring myself less than here. (3) The (correct!) belief in peaceful parenting has been twisted into an (incorrect!) belief in peaceful interactions everywhere. Parental aggression, including making your child "submit" to you is correctly frowned upon. But people lacking peaceful parents have already been trained in such aggression, and therefore only understand "dominance" and "submission". So people who expect "peaceful interactions everywhere" don't know what to do with someone-like-me, who is always willing to be aggressive when necessary. This erroneous expectation of "peaceful interactions everywhere" leaves many FDR members out of sorts when their peaceful appeals to "Don't abuse your child like that!" are met with hostility and aggression. (What? Really? An abusive parent was hostile towards you when you asked her not to be abusive? You don't say....) 2 3
MMX2010 Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 WastachMan, am I correct in presuming that you didn't downvote my first post in this thread?
WasatchMan Posted January 13, 2015 Author Posted January 13, 2015 WastachMan, am I correct in presuming that you didn't downvote my first post in this thread? You are correct, I have not been downvoting you.
J. D. Stembal Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 Any American who wants restricted immigration based on the racial composition of immigrants is automatically racist and evil. Have you tried linking, discussing, or posting any class eugenics material on here? (Diversity, as a political platform, is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing, particularly of wealthy, heterosexual, white men.) That would be certain to draw a negative response, even on FDR. "What do you mean whites are being racially exterminated?" In biology class, my freshman year of high school, I remember my teacher lecturing that in a few generations, if demographic patterns continue, there would be no more white people left in the United States. I had no earthly idea what he was talking about at the time, but I realize now that he was speaking off the cuff about class eugenics. I'm still not sure if he was promoting, detracting, or speaking completely neutrally about it. I would be surprised if a teacher could discuss a topic this politically sensitive in a public school today without facing a stiff penalty. Personally, I think borders and immigration is ludicrous. I once dated an illegal immigrant, and had to make my peace with how I felt about visas, passports, green cards, aliens and borders. Just like marriage licenses, birth certificates, and Social Security numbers, they are manifestations of an irrational state. Unlike Alex Jones and most libertarians, I truly want the borders to be open. However, they aren't really open. They will let people in, and give them money and ID cards, but they won't be so willing to let the people who want to leave out. In the next ten years, you will start hearing about a mass exodus of economically oppressed people trying to leave the continental United States, and being detained or jailed if they don't pay the piper. People already leaving or planning to leave, but they are typically the upper class. Peter Schiff is hosting a Puerto Rico cruise in an attempt to promote his friends and clients to move to the income tax exempt territory. There is a financial consulting company called Global Escape Hatch (I think Stefan interviewed one of the founders) which is helping people plan around totalitarianism. All the other people without the means or desire to leave the US will end up being left in the lurch when the borders close down for good. My other preferred message board is the Roosh V Forum, which strictly limits (to near zero) the postings of women and homosexuals. On the one hand, you'd predict that such a "sausage fest" would be boring. But what happens is that the absence of women and homosexuals means that the discussions are more free. They get heated, especially with regard to race, Islam, marriage, and women's essential nature - but you get both a more diverse range of opinions AND a civility with which those opinions are presented. How is this policy enforced? Do you find the restrictions valuable? If the policy can be enforced over the internet, I have trouble finding the value in it. Philosophy and reason enforces itself. Not many women post on here, and there is no such restriction. I would think that the public restriction against gays and women would actually motivate people to get around the restrictions to see what all the fuss is about (the men's club syndrome). I could be gay, and just not letting on. *GASP* P.S. Don't let the negs get you down, MMX. They can mean that you are acting foolish and people don't like your posts, or they can mean you are ackwardly pushing forward some hard to digest philosophical concepts. I think it's more of the latter and less of the former. This forum might be about philosophy, but not everyone will accept a total free market of ideas. The subset of ethical vegans on FDR was the first obvious example of anti-rational thinking that I noticed. It certainly will not be the last.
PatrickC Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 My other preferred message board is the Roosh V Forum, which strictly limits (to near zero) the postings of women and homosexuals. On the one hand, you'd predict that such a "sausage fest" would be boring. But what happens is that the absence of women and homosexuals means that the discussions are more free. They get heated, especially with regard to race, Islam, marriage, and women's essential nature - but you get both a more diverse range of opinions AND a civility with which those opinions are presented. This is a little off topic perhaps, but I like the idea of male only spaces. Certainly there can be some arseholes amongst them, but I think the male tendency to not pussyfoot around other men a useful quest in discovering some enlightenment.
shirgall Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 This is a little off topic perhaps, but I like the idea of male only spaces. Certainly there can be some arseholes amongst them, but I think the male tendency to not pussyfoot around other men a useful quest in discovering some enlightenment. Ok, you may be allowed to build a "man cave" in the garage... and you may post tin signs with old advertising and sexy ladies and have a leather couch.
PatrickC Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 Ok, you may be allowed to build a "man cave" in the garage... and you may post tin signs with old advertising and sexy ladies and have a leather couch. Ha ha, I was thinking more a garden shed filled to brimming with power tools..
Recommended Posts