is detroying someones religious beleifs unethical?

You seem to be suggesting that, since we're all fallible human beings, we should all live under the assumption that just about everything we believe is probably false. You seem to be suggesting that when two people disagree, they should keep quiet about it because they can never be certain that they are right and the other person is wrong.

I agree that we are fallible and that it is difficult (if not impossible) ever to know anything for certain. But nevertheless, I believe in a mind-independent external reality, where things are truth or false regardless of what we believe about them.

Don't you believe in truth? When two people believe contradictory things -- e.g. James believes that there is an apple on the table, while Jane believes that there is not an apple on the table -- don't you think that one of them has to be wrong and the other right? There either is or is not an apple on the table, and either James or Jane is mistaken. Right?

And do you not think that, by sharing the reasons for their beliefs and weighing them up agaisnt each other in a debate, James and Jane just might get closer to establishing the truth about the matter? For example, they might discover that Jane's reasons for doubting the existence of the apple are more coherent than James', and they might conclude form this that Jane's belief is more likely to be the correct one.

What if the disagreement was about something more important, such as whether or not to fly planes into the World Train Centre? If James thought that Allah wanted him and Jane to destroy the infidels, and Jane thought that Allah did not want them to destroy the infidels, what would you say to that?

Are they both right in their own way? Or is one of them entirely mistaken? Would it be a waste of time for them to have a debate about this matter? Would it be rude for Jane to challenge James' deeply held religious belief? Would it matter if it was rude? Is politeness really important when you're talking about something as massive as the creator of the entire universe?

0 Replies

it all comes down to, why? how would this spawn from nothing? where did god come from? if he was real, did he have a dad and a mom? i have no answers so i personally cant say yes or no without evidence.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

OGIONIK,

You have not "lost" anything. You raise a very important issue.

I take Sam Harris's view in this age of "religious terrorism" that atheists now have a duty to stand up and be counted. In that sense, as a general principle, it is not "unethical" to attack someone's palliative belief system, even in dealings with a close relative, any more than we might criticise their use of drugs. However, I am also of the opinion that most people seem to have a psychological need for such palliatives as an as aspect of a cognitive search for security in an uncertain world. The general principle should therefore be tempered with such an understanding. and perhaps controversially, an attempt to educate children in schools about the arbitrariness and sociopathic aspects of religious beliefs, before they become addicted or indoctrinated.

Ultimately, the qustion boils down to the interpretation of the word "ethical" which like "moral" has both psychological and sociological aspects. What may be "ethical" as a sociological principle may still be painful in terms of interpersonal relationships.

i like that you said addicted.

0 Replies

HELLOhhhh
I find it strange that my post was ignored......too real for everybody?

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Don't you believe in truth? When two people believe contradictory things -- e.g. James believes that there is an apple on the table, while Jane believes that there is not an apple on the table -- don't you think that one of them has to be wrong and the other right? There either is or is not an apple on the table, and either James or Jane is mistaken. Right?

And do you not think that, by sharing the reasons for their beliefs and weighing them up against each other in a debate, James and Jane just might get closer to establishing the truth about the matter? For example, they might discover that Jane's reasons for doubting the existence of the apple are more coherent than James', and they might conclude form this that Jane's belief is more likely to be the correct one.

I am not sure who you are speaking to, but my answer: Truth is real, our individual truths are our own only, but humans are much more the same than we are different. Here is the thing though, you can't make people face what they don't want to or make them better able to process it then they can. You can't force feed ideas because all you do is stir up resistance to you trying to apply force. In order for a person to learn they must want to learn, must seek out truth, must want to test their ideas (for instance at able2know.org). So the first problem with your concept is that it is ineffective.

The main problem is though except in rare instances you don't have the right to violate another person, and this includes their mental space. It may well be that this other person will be better off is they learn to see things as you do, but the ends do not justify the means. Might does not make right. It is much more important that you model humane behaviour by treating people with dignity and respect then it is for them to see right now the errors of their ways as you do.

Besides, if you want to educate people, your outlet is right here at able2know. People come here because they want to be exposed to new ideas, to have their minds stretched, to learn from people with different backgrounds. We sign up for that. There is no need to subject unsuspecting and nonconsenting people on the street to your almighty rightness.

0 Replies

xlucky13x wrote,

Quote:

I find it strange that my post was ignored......too real for everybody?

Your use of "only" and multiple "greats" was too childish for this audience to consider seriously. For example. if you want to make a point about "scientific progress" being hampered by "religious beliefs" you need to be able to counter the argument by theists that such "progress" lies in the gift of "a deity".

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

agrote wrote:

Don't you believe in truth? When two people believe contradictory things -- e.g. James believes that there is an apple on the table, while Jane believes that there is not an apple on the table -- don't you think that one of them has to be wrong and the other right? There either is or is not an apple on the table, and either James or Jane is mistaken. Right?

And do you not think that, by sharing the reasons for their beliefs and weighing them up against each other in a debate, James and Jane just might get closer to establishing the truth about the matter? For example, they might discover that Jane's reasons for doubting the existence of the apple are more coherent than James', and they might conclude form this that Jane's belief is more likely to be the correct one.

I am not sure who you are speaking to,

I was talking to shewolfm really, but your response is welcome.

Quote:

but my answer: Truth is real, our individual truths are our own only, but humans are much more the same than we are different.

What do you mean individual truths are our own? Do you mean individual beliefs? If there is an apple on the table, then it is there even if nobody believes that it is there. Do you agree with that or not?

Quote:

Here is the thing though, you can't make people face what they don't want to or make them better able to process it then they can.

Do you mean can't or shouldn't? If the former, then that's just a defeatist attitude. You can open people's minds, teach them new things, improve their capacity for reason... it might be difficult but it's not impossible.

Quote:

You can't force feed ideas because all you do is stir up resistance to you trying to apply force. In order for a person to learn they must want to learn, must seek out truth, must want to test their ideas (for instance at able2know.org). So the first problem with your concept is that it is ineffective.

Who said anything about applying force? Despite the word's connotations, "challenging" somebody's beliefs needn't be aggressive in any way. It might involve asking a series of questions in a calm tone of voice. Or even just recommending a book to somebody. You don't have to use your fists!

Quote:

The main problem is though except in rare instances you don't have the right to violate another person, and this includes their mental space. It may well be that this other person will be better off is they learn to see things as you do, but the ends do not justify the means.

Surely in some cases the ends do justify the means. If Osama Bin Laden strongly believes that God wants him to destroy the infidels, then surely it is justifiable for somebody to challenge this belief. They'd have to "violate his mental space" (whatever that means), and he might get very upset. But so what? There's no polite way to tell somebody that he's a deluded maniac, and yet this is a VERY important thing to do if you care at all about the survival of large groups of human beings.

In the less serious cases that you probably have in mind, such as challenging a parent about her not-so-deadly faith in Jesus, it is less obvious that the end would justify the means. But then the means wouldn't be quite as bad... you wouldn't need to use the phrase "deluded maniac". And, looking at the big picture, the end is pretty desirable: a world free of faith and full of intellectual honesty, where we all strive to get closer to the truth, and we all get around the world and satisfy our needs with much more success because of this. If being slightly rude to your mum will contribute to this end, then go for it!

Quote:

Might does not make right.

This cliche is irrelevant. I'm not talking about might.

Quote:

It is much more important that you model humane behaviour by treating people with dignity and respect then it is for them to see right now the errors of their ways as you do.

It depends what those errors are! Some religious belief are serious errors (see my Osama Bin Laden example), and it is urgent that these errors are corrected; much more urgent than showing "respect".

Quote:

There is no need to subject unsuspecting and nonconsenting people on the street to your almighty rightness.

First of all, who said anything about approaching people on the street?

Secodly, this generalisation just isn't accurate. Some false beliefs are harmless; other false beliefs motivate people to commit genocide. Most religious beliefs probably fall between these two extremes. Sometimes, not always, it really is perfectly justifiable to challenge somebody's religious beliefs even if they don't want to have them challenged. This is a pretty uncontroversial claim, I think.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Surely in some cases the ends do justify the means. If Osama Bin Laden strongly believes that God wants him to destroy the infidels, then surely it is justifiable for somebody to challenge this belief. They'd have to "violate his mental space" (whatever that means), and he might get very upset. But so what? There's no polite way to tell somebody that he's a deluded maniac, and yet this is a VERY important thing to do if you care at all about the survival of large groups of human beings.

Why? Why do you feel the need to straighten out what Osama Bin Laden believes? He is free to believe what ever he wants. He is not free to do what ever he wants, but that is another matter. If Islamic Extremists have a belief system to sell that you don't like the solution is not to change them or kill them, the solution is to have a better product to sell. There is no point in trying to sell to people who don't want to buy, stick to people who are looking for something to believe in, people who are questioning and want answers.

On challenging people's belief, unless they have signalled that they are open to having their belief questioned you are out of order to try to convince them of anything. You are free to tell them what you believe, but once they say they don't want to hear anymore it is your responsibility to shut-up. What you are doing is disrespectful. Just because you think you are better than others does not mean that you can act like you are.

Re the apple: if your experience makes it clear what an apple is then maybe another person will experience that apple in the same way. maybe not. Explain what an apple is to you if someone wants to know, or ask them what it is to them, and by comparing notes you will likely get closer to the truth. Two sets of eyes are better then one, two brains that compare notes and come to an agreement are better than one. Cooperative effort, that is how civilization and humanity advance, not by the one who is the most sure that they are right running over the viewpoints of everyone else.

Bottom line, you act like the kind of person who talks way too much. You should work on your listening skills, and commit to working with people rather than trying to strong arm them into agreeing with you.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

agrote wrote:

Surely in some cases the ends do justify the means. If Osama Bin Laden strongly believes that God wants him to destroy the infidels, then surely it is justifiable for somebody to challenge this belief. They'd have to "violate his mental space" (whatever that means), and he might get very upset. But so what? There's no polite way to tell somebody that he's a deluded maniac, and yet this is a VERY important thing to do if you care at all about the survival of large groups of human beings.

Why? Why do you feel the need to straighten out what Osama Bin Laden believes? He is free to believe what ever he wants. He is not free to do what ever he wants, but that is another matter.

But beliefs motivate actions! Expecially beliefs about what one ought to do (e.g. about whether one ought to murder 3,000 people). Do you really think it is more important to respect Osama's extremely far-fetched and dangerous beliefs than to persuade him that he doesn't need to murder thousands of people? I think you've got your priorities all mixed up.

Anyway, I'm not denying that everybody has the right to believe whatever they believe (I wouldn't use the word "want"... I don't think people pick and choose what they want to believe; belief is automatically governed by reason). I'm just asserting that we are under no obligation to avoid challenging beliefs which seem obviously false. Sure, it's nice to be polite. But it would be even nicer if everybody held beliefs which correspond to reality.

Despite appearances, I'm not claiming that all of my beliefs correspond to reality. I naturally think that they do... you can't believe something without thinking that it is true. But I'm also aware that, chances are, a hell of a lot of what I believe must be false. So my aim is not to make everybody else believe what I believe. My aim is to make everybody (including myself) believe whatever happens to be the truth.

Quote:

If Islamic Extremists have a belief system to sell that you don't like the solution is not to change them or kill them, the solution is to have a better product to sell. There is no point in trying to sell to people who don't want to buy, stick to people who are looking for something to believe in, people who are questioning and want answers.

Why stick to people who already have a tendency to question their beliefs? Shouldn't we encourage everybody to question their beliefs?

Quote:

On challenging people's belief, unless they have signalled that they are open to having their belief questioned you are out of order to try to convince them of anything. You are free to tell them what you believe, but once they say they don't want to hear anymore it is your responsibility to shut-up. What you are doing is disrespectful.

You keep asserting this, but you haven't provided an argument for it. Why does the responsibility lie with the challenger to shut-up? Why isn't it the other person's responsibility to allow their beliefs to be questioned? Which do you think is most healthy in terms of keeping an open mind and avoiding prejudice? Which is worse: prejudice or disrespect?

Quote:

Just because you think you are better than others does not mean that you can act like you are.

It's not about ego... I'm not promoting arguing just for the sake of winning. I'm promoting debate for the sake of getting at the truth, whatever that may be.

Quote:

Two sets of eyes are better then one, two brains that compare notes and come to an agreement are better than one. Cooperative effort, that is how civilization and humanity advance, not by the one who is the most sure that they are right running over the viewpoints of everyone else.

I completely agree. Coperative intellectual effort is exactly what I'm defending. I don't see how "shutting up" out of "respect" for other people's unjustified opinions contributes to the advance of civilisation or humanity. A free exchange of ideas, on the other hand (which may well involve having one's "deeply held" and "personal" beliefs challenged) seems like it might make a positive contribution to our advancement.

Quote:

Bottom line, you act like the kind of person who talks way too much. You should work on your listening skills, and commit to working with people rather than trying to strong arm them into agreeing with you.

Do you feel that I haven't been "listening" to what you've written? I thought that, despite the length of my own posts, I had been paying attention to just about everything contained in your posts. I've been responding point-by-point, haven't I?

0 Replies

The only person who can destroy the religious belief system is the person holding them. Its not unethical to debate. The religious inclined would love that. It would make them intellectually invincible. But it probably is unethical to poke around in someones deeply held belief system just for the hell of it.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

My aim is to make everybody (including myself) believe whatever happens to be the truth.

Truth is not some static thing that once you figure something out you can file it away, teach it to others, and move on the the next truth. Truth is different for each person, and it changes with time. Nailing down truth is like trying to nail jello to a tree, it is hard enough to do for a person who has no higher goal than to get themselves through life.. I love your energy, now if you could just concentrate that energy towards figuring out what your experience shows to be true rather than trying to do everyone else's homework ........

I believe that I have already answered all of your questions.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

agrote wrote:
Truth is not some static thing that once you figure something out you can file it away, teach it to others, and move on the the next truth. Truth is different for each person, and it changes with time.

Well we may never agree on this, but I am very much a realist: I believe that there are facts about the world which exist independently of what we believe about them. Truth is objective and mind-independent. If X is true, then it doesn't matter if the entire world believes that it is false; X will still be true, because truth is not relative.

Quote:
Nailing down truth is like trying to nail jello to a tree

Yes, it can be very difficult. But that does not entail that it is impossible, or that truth is therefore relative to persons. Imagine just for a second that there is an objective, mind-independent reality full of facts which are true independently of whether we believe them. Now reflect again on the fact that getting at the truth can be very difficult.

Are these two things incompatible? No, of course not. We are fallible people, with limited brains and sense apparatus, so of course it can be difficult for us to know what the world is like. But that does not entail that the world isn't like something. Even if were all deaf blind, numb and completely unaware of the world, that would not mean that there wouldn't be one.

I haven't said enough to establish that there is an external world and that truth can be objective, but then you haven't said enough to establish the opposite. We've reached an impasse, I think.

Quote:
love your energy, now if you could just concentrate that energy towards figuring out what your experience shows to be true rather than trying to do everyone else's homework ........

You've lost me. Whose homework am I doing?

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

I get you, shewolf, and agree with you.

I'll modify my mixed feelings opinion to "it depends".

My father got very ill from the time I was about seventeen until he died, when I was twenty-seven, when he was sixty-two. In his youth he was a philosophy major, "poet laureate" of Santa Clara U. in such and such a year, a fact my mother told me many times... which is my way of explaining he could take discussing and argument. We talked easily when we could talk, and he wrote me heartfelt letters. I know his religious belief was a choice of faith past his doubts as he had intimated that much, I think just once, fleetingly, but I am completely positive that he and I could have talked about the toughest belief questions, but for other sorts of troubles happening. I will conjecture that I could have talked with him with my questions and assertions anywhere along the line: he would have understood me, and presumably would have argued/spoken well back, but I got to questions and assertions late. Hah, call me a late-blooming atheist.

I'd never go there with my mother, and didn't, and it became moot when she got alzheimer's.

0 Replies

Given that the fundamentals of philosophy should rely on logic, I for one would not have been able to resist the temptation to ask "by what form of logic do you suppose that the brief in fairies has merit?"

By comparison, a nuclear physicist still might enjoy a game of tic-tac-toe, but that does not mean he would believe that the X's & O's are under the influence of the supernatural.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Well we may never agree on this, but I am very much a realist: I believe that there are facts about the world which exist independently of what we believe about them. Truth is objective and mind-independent. If X is true, then it doesn't matter if the entire world believes that it is false; X will still be true, because truth is not relative.

We will never agree because I don't approach reality in the same way that you do. I am mystic, I have no use for your faith that truth can be determined through the computing mind. For me almost all of the most important truths are reveled. They flow from the heart and the irrational mind, not the rational mind.

I have no problem talking with you and comparing what you believe and what I believe. I dont need to agree with you to interact with you or even to be friends with you. Most of the time i would rather be around people who I don't agree with, makes life more interesting. Thing is you demand the right to try to reform me. I am telling you that until you can respect me enough as a human individual with free will that you no longer approach me demanding that I change who I am, go to h*ll.

0 Replies

Did you do that with your parents? (I haven't read the whole thread intensively).

0 Replies

Moi?

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

We will never agree because I don't approach reality in the same way that you do.

There seems to be a hint of realism in this sentence. I'd be interested to know: Do you think that reality is essentially the same no matter how you approach it? Obviously, depending on how you approach it, reality will not seem the same. But will it be the same?

Quote:

I have no problem talking with you and comparing what you believe and what I believe. I dont need to agree with you to interact with you or even to be friends with you.

Same here.

Quote:

I am telling you that until you can respect me enough as a human individual with free will that you no longer approach me demanding that I change who I am, go to h*ll.

Well I don't believe in free will or hell, so I can't meet all of your demands, I'm afraid.

As for my demands... I don't remember making them. When did I demand that you change who you are? As I recall, our discussion was about hypothetically approaching somebody else, in an attempt to challenge their religious beliefs.

0 Replies

I'll go entirely non-philosophical on the original post. Is is wrong?

If your dad is 34 and has plenty of time left to adjust course in life and seems open to new ideas, there is no reason not to debate and challenge him.

If he is 84 and obviously set in his old ways, why shake him. Let him be at peace with his old school ideas...

Either way, it's your old man...

0 Replies

SerialCoder wrote:

If he is 84 and obviously set in his old ways, why shake him. Let him be at peace with his old school ideas...

What if his religious beliefs are such that death to the Jews is paramount, and instead of you receiving the inheritance, it's been earmarked to organizations that favor such purposes?

0 Replies

is detroying someones religious beleifs unethical?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know