Religion Does Not Engender Respect

What you may be forgetting is that people are their beliefs (or disbeliefs). The "respect" angle breaks down. because you are dealing with social cohesion and self-integrity, not "logic".

I argue that the methodology of skepticism as it applies not to philosophical skepticism but to scientific skepticism, can be at least in part if not in whole be exempted from your claims.

In other words it scientific skepticism is not predicated on individual or group beliefs.

fresco is correct. A religious belief has nothing to do with, nor is subject to, the rules of logic. I respect every person's personal credos even if I disagree with these credos completely. It would be senseless for me to try and refute a belief that is insupportable on any logical or scientific grounds. Religion cannot be supported by any scientific measurements; by that same token, it cannot be refuted on those grounds.

Again, scientific skepticism is not predicated on individual or group beliefs. And yes superstitious beliefs can be can be refuted on those grounds. I have done it many times with great success. Would you like to see?

Let's start here:

Superstitious beliefs = religious beliefs.

You will get no argument out of me on that last sentence (although I would reverse the equation to read "religious beliefs=superstitious beliefs.") With me, you can win your argument quite easily because you are not arguing with a "true believer." My point is that to such a believer such arguments have no merit. We (i.e. us and them) are working from two entirely separate "palettes", if you will, of truth perception. If my opponent accepts certain religious base beliefs as axiomatic, I am not going to sway him/her by use of logic or of mathematical "proofs."

My real point, I think, is why would I even try to do that? I'm not here to proselityze atheism, agnosticism or any other --ism. Much truth is sujectve; what the religious person holds to be "true" may seem like nonsense to me but to that person it has deep psychological meaning and gives that person a measure of inner peace. It wouldn't occur to me to try and dissuade such an individual from his/her deeply-held beliefs.

And, yes (to answer your headline), I do respect such beliefs even though I share none of them. They are, after all, a measure of that person's personality and if he/she is acceptable to me in all other respects, why would I not respect some deep inner feelings? I need not share them, but 'respect' is quite a different thing.

Why should anyone, religious or non-religious, agree to be subjected to the "methodology of skepticism"?

Why shouldn't they?

Aw, that's not worthy of you, Chum, answering one direct question with another. That, as you well know, is no answer at all.

In my personal musings, religion gets no respect. In my personal relations, it gets a great deal, so long as the religious-minded treat me accordingly.

It would be dogmatic to insist that they should.

It would be dogmatic to insist that they shouldn't.

FWIW, Confucius may not have agreed with you, and nor do I.

Oh dear...Lets further consider the definition of "respect": the condition of being esteemed or honored.

I do not honor ignorance, pseudo-science and illogic, all of which are symptomatic of superstitious beliefs = religious beliefs. That you do honor illogic would require an explanation, if you wish me to give your views merit.

I am not insisting on anything. So far, you have justified lack of respect for religion to yourself only.

This brings up the question as to whether the religious-minded are willing to treat you accordingly, given that their beliefs may be in conflict with the way you expect to be treated.

I esteem and honor the person regardless of that person's personal beliefs, even when I consider such beliefs erroneous.

You see, I am well aware that my own beliefs, no matter how solidly grounded in scientific "proof", may someday prove to be erroneous as well. I don't believe that there are any objective, irrevocable, unshakeable "truths" that any of us are aware of. (This is not the same as saying that objective unassailable truths do not exist; merely that we, as humans, know of none.) All we have is data, a set of observable and observed phenomena which we struggle to shoehorn into some pattern of cohesive facts. Today's unassailable "facts" may well turn out to be tomorrow's "myths." The history of science is rife with things like phlogiston theory and the four elements and Aristotle's "laws" of motion. Risible, all of them, today. I wonder what so-called "facts" that we cling to today will seem risible to future generations.

My ego is not overly large; perhaps I haven't exercised it enough . I do not believe I have any right whatever to disparage or -- worse -- disrespect the beliefs of any other person unless that person insists on trying to force his/her views on me. Some religiously-oriented people are simply obnoxious; I have no respect for that at all. But with reasonable persons I simply try to stick to other topics.

1) Assuming your claim has merit (which I have not as of yet addressed) why should I argue justification for another?

2) On what grounds do you claim I have justified lack of respect for religion for myself only?

So, are your conclusions about religion intended for yourself only?

You're more than welcome to view religion with skepticism and I respect your skepticism.

I don't, however, respect your antagonism towards religion and your lack of respect for those who adopt one form or another as part of their belief system.

You've intentionally or otherwise, chosen a negatively loaded definition of "superstition," that reflects as much or more of the person using the term than the one whose beliefs are being addressed.

Superstition's cleanest definition is: A belief in causality that is not limited to
persons or processes perceived in the physical world.

While this may be an aspect of religion, it is hardly all that religion is.

Considering that even the hardest of hard scientists would never suggest that science has provided a precise and concrete explanation of everything we perceive (let alone everything we suspect), it seems to me to be the height of arrogance to assume that you (or someone like you) can pass judgment, with any inkling of finality, on what is sound and what is unsound.

You seem to be of the opinion that that religion requires superstition, and that if there ever comes a time when the existence of God might be scientifically proven, the religious would have to find a new unprovable basis for their beliefs.

I don't wish to assume what you do or do not believe, so let me ask you: Where does a scientific theory fall?

Is String Theory superstitous? Are bosons supernatural entities?