The real problem: Christianity

[Politesse]

I think one problem is "idiot". Most religious belief is not a result of lack of intellect, but of emotional bias which precludes applying intellect to religious issues. Now, such bias is not an honest mistake but a type of willful irrationality, and thus people are still morally responsible for the harm they cause by promoting a religion that is inherently authoritarian. It's a kind of selfish desire to preserve one's worldview leading to delusions that obscure the harm one is causing. So, they are in fact "dangerous", no matter how "kind".

A illustrative example are people who sincerely believe that homosexuality will get you on God's naughty list, which despite apologists is part of Biblical theology. A "kind" person who sincerely believes what the Bible says would and actually should (if what they believe was true) try to turn a person including a teen away from homosexuality. Their efforts are only abusive b/c their belief is false. I would argue that causing such harm as a result of willful ignorance is an act of reckless negligence showing a selfish act of putting one's delusions above actually caring about other's real well being. Thus, those who harm by trying to "save souls" are not in fact kind and moral people. They are more analogous to a polite well mannered southern racist.

Yet another atheist stumping for conservative theology. Ho-hum.

To clarify: the idea that monstrous acts become non-monstrous if you can cook up some Scriptural excuse for doing them is the cause of much of the world's suffering, and you should not endorse it, whatever your rhetorical reasons for doing so. Winning forum arguments is not more important than helping or hurting real human beings.

 

[southernhybrid]

Well, we have some very different perspectives on sohy. She does usually seem decent, I agree. Also I agree that she has always defended her religious friends and family (I just do not see the relevance of pointing out that. Nor the appropriateness of it. Should religious friends/family always be defended, and never be open to criticism? That is where we may have some different views.).

One other notable characteristic that I have come across with sohy is one I have seen termed as “conversational narcissism.” It is a trait where people have a tendency to talk about themselves incessantly. In real life I have seen many people display this trait, and it will result in people dominating conversations when others are around, and using everybody else’s time to talk about themselves in long-winded detail, much past the point that others care to hear. They also rarely are given a chance to talk themselves.

Online on this forum at least, I would consider sohy unfortunately the most egregious example of it. Very many of her posts include her giving a mini-autobiography and lengthy personal anecdotes, which could have been eliminated or abbreviated so that the most relevant point could be emphasized better. Yes, anyone (including me) has the option of simply not reading her posts. The problem though, as I have stated earlier, is that she also repeatedly holds some bad positions (about how people should not care about the beliefs of other people unless it is getting enforced on them). That is a reckless and deeply flawed position to hold, but one that is also very common among apathetic and ignorant atheists even. I strive to expose those flaws and correct them. So I do choose to skim (usually) sohy’s posts, and especially skim or ignore the lengthy autobiographical portions of them, because I want to address the most relevant parts.



That is not even my position to begin with, it is entirely a severe strawman misunderstanding of it. Here is my real position: I do not at all think religious people are always dangerous or idiots. Many of the most intelligent people I have come across in my life are very religious. Many are also very kind. Many are a blend of those traits. People do not get squeezed entirely into one or the other categories either, it is not a binary choice. It is moreso a spectrum of a wide variety of characteristics.

I do hold that in general (there are some exceptions, but there are still more the rules) religion hampers progress, and does harm overall both to the people who hold them (even if they are oblivious to the harm) and to non-followers of those religions.

What makes a person religious has less to do with their intelligence---and more to do with their cognitive biases (all humans, self included, have all sorts of biases). Religions shield their followers’ biases instead of encouraging them to be identified and challenged.

Brian -

I didn't intend to single you out. I was defending SOHY, and do not regret it. I would do it again. Chin up, mate.

You have not offended me, and you have not hurt my feelings WAB. You can keep up the macho-man routine if that makes you feel better, but it will not deter me either. If you want to play nicer instead, I am fine with that too.

Now the truth comes out, you don't like my little narratives, so you think it's okay to attack me personally. But, this isn't the place to make personal attacks and assumptions about people who you don't even know in real life.

You don't have to read any of the posts that I write where I share some of my personal life experiences. I'm not the only one who does that, but unlike you, I enjoy reading the experiences of other people. In fact, it's one of my favorite parts of the forum. I find individuals interesting and I enjoy learning about what they've experienced in life. If you don't like such narratives boring, don't read them. It's as simple as that. There are plenty of posters here who's posts I find boring or irrelevant, so I just skip over them, realizing that we are all unique individuals with a variety of interests and ways of expressing ourselves.

But, I don't attack people personally just because I disagree with them, like you just did. Attacking someone personally, especially just because you disagree with their opinions or don't like their style of posting, says a lot more about that one who attacks than the one who has been attacked. You've insulted both WAB, and me.

 

[bilby]

I think one problem is "idiot". Most religious belief is not a result of lack of intellect, but of emotional bias which precludes applying intellect to religious issues. Now, such bias is not an honest mistake but a type of willful irrationality, and thus people are still morally responsible for the harm they cause by promoting a religion that is inherently authoritarian. It's a kind of selfish desire to preserve one's worldview leading to delusions that obscure the harm one is causing. So, they are in fact "dangerous", no matter how "kind".

A illustrative example are people who sincerely believe that homosexuality will get you on God's naughty list, which despite apologists is part of Biblical theology. A "kind" person who sincerely believes what the Bible says would and actually should (if what they believe was true) try to turn a person including a teen away from homosexuality. Their efforts are only abusive b/c their belief is false. I would argue that causing such harm as a result of willful ignorance is an act of reckless negligence showing a selfish act of putting one's delusions above actually caring about other's real well being. Thus, those who harm by trying to "save souls" are not in fact kind and moral people. They are more analogous to a polite well mannered southern racist.

Yet another atheist stumping for conservative theology. Ho-hum.

To clarify: the idea that monstrous acts become non-monstrous if you can cook up some Scriptural excuse for doing them is the cause of much of the world's suffering, and you should not endorse it, whatever your rhetorical reasons for doing so. Winning forum arguments is not more important than helping or hurting real human beings.

He didn't endorse any such thing. Indeed, he is obviously arguing against exactly that.

That you see describing something as "part of Biblical theology" as an endorsement, and not a condemnation, is exactly the problem under discussion - religious people give a pass to those who claim religious motives.

To me, it's VERY obvious that ronburgundy is attacking, not endorsing, these monstrous acts, because the acts he describes are monstrous. And yet clearly you see the words "part of Biblical theology", and conclude that that's an endorsement of the thing described, even if that thing is monstrous.

That's monstrous. And is exactly the reason why devout religious belief is dangerous even amongst peaceful and kindly people.

 

[Brian63]

Now the truth comes out,

What do you mean by "now?" I have been telling truths about my disagreements with your opinions for some time. I have held back on other viewpoints that I hold, but that is true for everyone in life. Do you always tell everyone the entirety of everything you think about them? Or do you sometimes not? I have plenty of private thoughts about all sorts of people throughout life, many of which I do not tell them about. That is pretty normal behavior for people.

you don't like my little narratives,

They are not "little." They are lengthy, frequent, and reflect a sense of vanity and wanting to talk about yourself to an extraordinary degree.

so you think it's okay to attack me personally.

That is incorrect. I have "criticized" (which you mistakenly conflate with "attack") your views on religious views being enforced on others. Also, please do not think you are a victim by people criticizing your views.

But, this isn't the place to make personal attacks and assumptions about people who you don't even know in real life.

I have seen you online for a long time, making the same flawed arguments and also exhibiting the same level of vanity in wanting to talk about yourself to great lengths.

You don't have to read any of the posts that I write where I share some of my personal life experiences.

I know I do not. If you read my post again that you quoted, I already pre-butted that point. Here is what I said:

"Yes, anyone (including me) has the option of simply not reading her posts. The problem though, as I have stated earlier, is that she also repeatedly holds some bad positions (about how people should not care about the beliefs of other people unless it is getting enforced on them). That is a reckless and deeply flawed position to hold, but one that is also very common among apathetic and ignorant atheists even. I strive to expose those flaws and correct them. So I do choose to skim (usually) sohy’s posts, and especially skim or ignore the lengthy autobiographical portions of them, because I want to address the most relevant parts."

I'm not the only one who does that,

They are not all the same. There are significant differences in length and frequency in which you do it.

but unlike you, I enjoy reading the experiences of other people.

Holy hypocrisy. Weren't you the one who just earlier said to me "this isn't the place to make personal attacks and assumptions about people who you don't even know in real life."? Yes, that was you.

In fact, it's one of my favorite parts of the forum.

That is fine. I also often enjoy reading, listening, and watching people talk about their own life stories. Sometimes though, certain individuals take it to extreme lengths and demonstrate a strong vanity when they talk about themselves in very minute details, over and over again.

I find individuals interesting and I enjoy learning about what they've experienced in life. If you don't like such narratives boring, don't read them. It's as simple as that.

Actually, there is more to it than that. To quote again where I already pre-butted this response of yours---

"Yes, anyone (including me) has the option of simply not reading her posts. The problem though, as I have stated earlier, is that she also repeatedly holds some bad positions (about how people should not care about the beliefs of other people unless it is getting enforced on them). That is a reckless and deeply flawed position to hold, but one that is also very common among apathetic and ignorant atheists even. I strive to expose those flaws and correct them. So I do choose to skim (usually) sohy’s posts, and especially skim or ignore the lengthy autobiographical portions of them, because I want to address the most relevant parts."

But, I don't attack people personally just because I disagree with them, like you just did.

You completely misstated what happened. There are lots of people who I have friendly disagreements with, and engage in good chats throughout life. On this forum for instance, I disagree with ronburgundy above, but I still respect him very much so (he is a very smart person) and I am interested in his input, especially if I am wrong. I never attacked him, even though I disagreed with him. So you are misstating the truth and arguing against a strawman.

 

[Politesse]

To clarify: the idea that monstrous acts become non-monstrous if you can cook up some Scriptural excuse for doing them is the cause of much of the world's suffering, and you should not endorse it, whatever your rhetorical reasons for doing so. Winning forum arguments is not more important than helping or hurting real human beings.

He didn't endorse any such thing. Indeed, he is obviously arguing against exactly that.

That you see describing something as "part of Biblical theology" as an endorsement, and not a condemnation, is exactly the problem under discussion - religious people give a pass to those who claim religious motives.

To me, it's VERY obvious that ronburgundy is attacking, not endorsing, these monstrous acts, because the acts he describes are monstrous. And yet clearly you see the words "part of Biblical theology", and conclude that that's an endorsement of the thing described, even if that thing is monstrous.

That's monstrous. And is exactly the reason why devout religious belief is dangerous even amongst peaceful and kindly people.

Uh, no. He literally said "Their efforts are only abusive b/c their belief is false." In short, if Ron Burgundy "believed in the Bible", he would endorse the abuse of children. I do not, and would not, and condemn anyone who promotes such ideas or commits such crimes.

 

[ronburgundy]

To clarify: the idea that monstrous acts become non-monstrous if you can cook up some Scriptural excuse for doing them is the cause of much of the world's suffering, and you should not endorse it, whatever your rhetorical reasons for doing so. Winning forum arguments is not more important than helping or hurting real human beings.

He didn't endorse any such thing. Indeed, he is obviously arguing against exactly that.

That you see describing something as "part of Biblical theology" as an endorsement, and not a condemnation, is exactly the problem under discussion - religious people give a pass to those who claim religious motives.

To me, it's VERY obvious that ronburgundy is attacking, not endorsing, these monstrous acts, because the acts he describes are monstrous. And yet clearly you see the words "part of Biblical theology", and conclude that that's an endorsement of the thing described, even if that thing is monstrous.

That's monstrous. And is exactly the reason why devout religious belief is dangerous even amongst peaceful and kindly people.

Uh, no. He literally said "Their efforts are only abusive b/c their belief is false." In short, if Ron Burgundy "believed in the Bible", he would endorse the abuse of children. I do not, and would not, and condemn anyone who promotes such ideas or commits such crimes.

IF God actually did exist and sent homosexuals to hell, then preventing a person from being homosexual even if it caused some psychological distress would objectively be similar to tackling a blind person about to step in front of a moving bus, thereby breaking their arm while saving their life. To simply let a child become gay and suffer in hell would be psychologically identical to just standing there and watching a blind person step in front of a bus. The reason that they are not the same in reality is precisely b/c buses are real and God is not. Your response simply shows that you are not capable of entertaining the hypothetical world where Christian theology is objectively true.

The reality is that people who do sincerely believe the Bible is an accurate account of God's will are harmful and abusive to people, which is why the Bible and Christianity are inherently harmful and promoting them as the source of ethics is immoral. Those who claim to treat the Bible as the word of God but who do not do things like prevent kids from being gay are simply lying about believing the Bible is the word of God. Suppose you claim to believe that the left peddle in your car is the gas and right is the brake, but you only press the left and the never press the right peddle when you want to stop. That would be evidence that you are lying when you say you believe that b/c any sincere believer would act as they what they believe is in fact as true.

That does NOT mean that so long as you believe X, it's okay to do X even when it causes objective harm. In fact, that is the very opposite of what I said. If your belief in X is false and you only believe it due to self delusion and willful ignorance to preserve a feel good dogma, then any actions based on that belief that cause harm is a result of selfish choice of self delusion over making sure you are not causing other people harm. IOW, irrationality is in itself immoral b/c it is the basis of behaviors that cause harm that could have been avoided if the believer was not so selfishly irrational by choice.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think one problem is "idiot". Most religious belief is not a result of lack of intellect, but of emotional bias which precludes applying intellect to religious issues. Now, such bias is not an honest mistake but a type of willful irrationality, and thus people are still morally responsible for the harm they cause by promoting a religion that is inherently authoritarian. It's a kind of selfish desire to preserve one's worldview leading to delusions that obscure the harm one is causing. So, they are in fact "dangerous", no matter how "kind".

A illustrative example are people who sincerely believe that homosexuality will get you on God's naughty list, which despite apologists is part of Biblical theology. A "kind" person who sincerely believes what the Bible says would and actually should (if what they believe was true) try to turn a person including a teen away from homosexuality. Their efforts are only abusive b/c their belief is false. I would argue that causing such harm as a result of willful ignorance is an act of reckless negligence showing a selfish act of putting one's delusions above actually caring about other's real well being. Thus, those who harm by trying to "save souls" are not in fact kind and moral people. They are more analogous to a polite well mannered southern racist.

Yet another atheist stumping for conservative theology. Ho-hum.

No, I'm exposing the dishonesty and immorality of liberal theology, which inherently aids and abets the immorality of conservative theology.
I'm recognizing the objective fact that people act based upon beliefs. Thus, if we agree that the ethics of an action is a result of the actual harm it causes others, then what a person sincerely believes will be the objective consequences of their actions or inaction is the only basis available for sound moral action. As a result, that makes it a moral requirement for every person to make a sincere honest effort to verify the truth of their beliefs and thus to apply rational evidence based thought as much as possible. It also means it is immoral to give any credibility to sources of information that have zero rational basis and are known to contain objectively harmful recommendations, aka the Bible, as many liberal Christians continue to do regardless of how they dishonestly cherry pick it while pretending it has any special inherent credibility.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think one problem is "idiot". Most religious belief is not a result of lack of intellect, but of emotional bias which precludes applying intellect to religious issues. Now, such bias is not an honest mistake but a type of willful irrationality, and thus people are still morally responsible for the harm they cause by promoting a religion that is inherently authoritarian. It's a kind of selfish desire to preserve one's worldview leading to delusions that obscure the harm one is causing. So, they are in fact "dangerous", no matter how "kind".

A illustrative example are people who sincerely believe that homosexuality will get you on God's naughty list, which despite apologists is part of Biblical theology. A "kind" person who sincerely believes what the Bible says would and actually should (if what they believe was true) try to turn a person including a teen away from homosexuality. Their efforts are only abusive b/c their belief is false. I would argue that causing such harm as a result of willful ignorance is an act of reckless negligence showing a selfish act of putting one's delusions above actually caring about other's real well being. Thus, those who harm by trying to "save souls" are not in fact kind and moral people. They are more analogous to a polite well mannered southern racist.

Ron,

You use the terms "willful irrationality" and "willful ignorance" and those terms I have been discussing elsewhere recently. I have long avoided using them, as I think they are ambiguous and even misleading. It seems to suggest that people are consciously and knowingly exerting willpower to be irrational and ignorant, which is not how I thought the human mind functions. As you note, brains are built with biases, and we try (subconsciously) to protect them. Having irrational and ignorant views is an unintended consequence of protecting our biases. It was not our original goal though, and not what we were exerting willpower to do. People who actually have very irrational and very ignorant beliefs will still even view themselves as being rational and knowledgeable, yes? Dunning-Kruger, for instance.

There is plenty of evidence that people engage in willful irrationality. They will actively avoid situations, conversations, and sources that they know are likely to provide unpleasant information. They expend extra time and energy (which reveals deliberate controlled processing not just bottom up automatic biases) to make up excuses to reject X that the very next moment they will claim are invalid excuses to reject Y. The anger and aggression towards non-believers and infidels that is highly correlated with biased faith based dogma reveals an insecurity stemming from knowing on some level that one's beliefs are intellectually indefensible.

 

[Politesse]

I think one problem is "idiot". Most religious belief is not a result of lack of intellect, but of emotional bias which precludes applying intellect to religious issues. Now, such bias is not an honest mistake but a type of willful irrationality, and thus people are still morally responsible for the harm they cause by promoting a religion that is inherently authoritarian. It's a kind of selfish desire to preserve one's worldview leading to delusions that obscure the harm one is causing. So, they are in fact "dangerous", no matter how "kind".

A illustrative example are people who sincerely believe that homosexuality will get you on God's naughty list, which despite apologists is part of Biblical theology. A "kind" person who sincerely believes what the Bible says would and actually should (if what they believe was true) try to turn a person including a teen away from homosexuality. Their efforts are only abusive b/c their belief is false. I would argue that causing such harm as a result of willful ignorance is an act of reckless negligence showing a selfish act of putting one's delusions above actually caring about other's real well being. Thus, those who harm by trying to "save souls" are not in fact kind and moral people. They are more analogous to a polite well mannered southern racist.

Yet another atheist stumping for conservative theology. Ho-hum.

No, I'm exposing the dishonesty and immorality of liberal theology, which inherently aids and abets the immorality of conservative theology.
I'm recognizing the objective fact that people act based upon beliefs. Thus, if we agree that the ethics of an action is a result of the actual harm it causes others, then what a person sincerely believes will be the objective consequences of their actions or inaction is the only basis available for sound moral action. As a result, that makes it a moral requirement for every person to make a sincere honest effort to verify the truth of their beliefs and thus to apply rational evidence based thought as much as possible. It also means it is immoral to give any credibility to sources of information that have zero rational basis and are known to contain objectively harmful recommendations, aka the Bible, as many liberal Christians continue to do regardless of how they dishonestly cherry pick it while pretending it has any special inherent credibility.

So outright opposing child abuse is "aiding and abetting" it, whereas saying "it's wrong, but a little bit right" is making a strong case against it?

I reject this. Abusing children is wrong no matter how you choose to support it, and the Biblical arguments you cite are dishonest and inconsistent. The Bible never instructs anyone to "save" their neighbor by committing acts of violence against them, unless you read the book through the same twisted perspective you are advocating. Conservative Christians do not own the faith simply because they are loud and numerous. They do not, however much they may happily volunteer to, get to define what constitutes "mere Christianity" after their own image of violence and terror. And you should not cede that ground to them just because you think it suits your purposes to do so. When the time comes, your conservative allies will happily kill you. Your true neighbors will not.

 

[Brian63]

There is plenty of evidence that people engage in willful irrationality. They will actively avoid situations, conversations, and sources that they know are likely to provide unpleasant information.

The issue being disputed is whether they think they are rational for doing so. It seems you are saying they are knowingly irrational. I agree that their actions are active and deliberate---but that if probed, they would think they are rational for engaging in such avoidance behavior. They generalize and say that book or video or essay is absurd or boring or worthless (even if they cannot come up with a successful specific refutation of it). I have come across far more people who build ad hoc and post hoc defenses of their (irrational) beliefs than will admit that they are being irrational.

 

[ronburgundy]

No, I'm exposing the dishonesty and immorality of liberal theology, which inherently aids and abets the immorality of conservative theology.
I'm recognizing the objective fact that people act based upon beliefs. Thus, if we agree that the ethics of an action is a result of the actual harm it causes others, then what a person sincerely believes will be the objective consequences of their actions or inaction is the only basis available for sound moral action. As a result, that makes it a moral requirement for every person to make a sincere honest effort to verify the truth of their beliefs and thus to apply rational evidence based thought as much as possible. It also means it is immoral to give any credibility to sources of information that have zero rational basis and are known to contain objectively harmful recommendations, aka the Bible, as many liberal Christians continue to do regardless of how they dishonestly cherry pick it while pretending it has any special inherent credibility.

So outright opposing child abuse is "aiding and abetting" it, whereas saying "it's wrong, but a little bit right" is making a strong case against it?

Nothing I said implies child abuse is "a little bit right". You're engaging in question begging in addition to straw-manning and other dishonest fallacies.

I said that what is "abuse" and what is "immoral" can only be psychologically determined by evaluating the actual consequences to the person impacted by the behavior. Do you deny that?

I also said that even an ideal ethical person trying to avoid harm and "abuse" can only rely upon what they believe the actual consequences of various action are. Do you deny that?

I also recognized that some people believe that God does not approve homosexuality and punishes it, and that belief is as real and objective to them as anything you believe, such as that a car hitting your kid at 50mph will likely kill them. Do you deny that?

I then applied basic deductive logic to these 3 non-controversial premises to conclude that if you hold said belief, then you would have no possible psychological basis to judge that steering a child from homosexuality was abusive or harmful, any more then you right now have a basis to think grabbing and pulling your kid from in front of a moving bus was "abuse", even if it happened to cause some injury to them.

The logic of the argument is:

X (abuse) is a judgment about Z (an action) that is determined evaluating Y (the consequences)
W (people's beliefs about causal impact of some action Z) are the basis on which people evaluate Y.
Thus, W (beliefs) determine whether a person could judge that Z is X.
Restated, only by rejecting W (particular beliefs) can a person judge Z(action) as X(abuse).

So long as a person sincerely believes Z, there is no psychological basis on which they can view the action as abuse.

You and I view conversion therapy as abuse b/c we reject the belief in a God that admonishes homosexuality.

However, contrary to your strawman, that doesn't get conversion therapy supporters off the moral hook, unless, as you seem to assume, a person is not morally responsible for holding false (W) beliefs. My argument is that all theism (and all belief the Bible is more useful than a doorstop) are the result of willful self-delusion, and thus as chosen acts, their objective harmful impact on others is a choice to selfishly believe falsehoods that harm other people.

I also argue that that anyone who aids and helps protect/enhance the harmful delusions of others via their own selfish delusions (such as that the God of the Bible is real and the Bible is a reliable source of ethics in general) is an immoral accomplice. Yes, liberal Christians claim conversion therapy is wrong, but they often do so while actively supporting the moral authority of a doctrine that says homosexuality is wrong, and their lies of 'that isn't what the Bible says' is just another selfish denial of reality which doesn't get them off the hook for promoting the Bible as a moral authority. They are analogous to Trump who supports lies that if they were true would incite people to quite rightly riot. Then he claims, but I don't support actual rioting, just the lies that logically would make rioting more likely.

 

[ronburgundy]

There is plenty of evidence that people engage in willful irrationality. They will actively avoid situations, conversations, and sources that they know are likely to provide unpleasant information.

The issue being disputed is whether they think they are rational for doing so. It seems you are saying they are knowingly irrational. I agree that their actions are active and deliberate---but that if probed, they would think they are rational for engaging in such avoidance behavior. They generalize and say that book or video or essay is absurd or boring or worthless (even if they cannot come up with a successful specific refutation of it). I have come across far more people who build ad hoc and post hoc defenses of their (irrational) beliefs than will admit that they are being irrational.

You're treating consciousness as though it's a dichotomous on/off switch where a person either has their own cognition at max center of awareness or it is as out of awareness as information that is completely inaccessible to them (like the theory of evolution is to an ant).

Consciousness is a continuum, and holding a belief is a constant ongoing event where it get activated by new info relevant to it, re-evaluated, it impacts how that info is process etc. It involves effort and decisions to apply or not apply effort. Being rational takes work, so being willfully irrational can just require the decision to avoid careful controlled reasoning and thereby shield oneself from any conclusion that new information contradicts the belief. There are countless examples including with randomized experiments showing that people do this and that how much they do it depends on how objectively defensible their cherished belief is.

 

[Politesse]

So long as a person sincerely believes Z, there is no psychological basis on which they can view the action as abuse.

You and I view conversion therapy as abuse b/c we reject the belief in a God that admonishes homosexuality.

But you are the one trying erase and disparage any version of Christianity that does not believe Z. Throwing tacit support to abusers.

 

[Brian63]

You're treating consciousness as though it's a dichotomous on/off switch where a person either has their own cognition at max center of awareness or it is as out of awareness as information that is completely inaccessible to them (like the theory of evolution is to an ant).

Consciousness is a continuum, and holding a belief is a constant ongoing event where it get activated by new info relevant to it, re-evaluated, it impacts how that info is process etc. It involves effort and decisions to apply or not apply effort. Being rational takes work, so being willfully irrational can just require the decision to avoid careful controlled reasoning and thereby shield oneself from any conclusion that new information contradicts the belief. There are countless examples including with randomized experiments showing that people do this and that how much they do it depends on how objectively defensible their cherished belief is.

Okay, thanks. Curious question then---do you personally hold any beliefs that you know right now are irrational? Do you engage in any behaviors that you currently know are irrational?



I am assuming I have plenty of irrational and false beliefs right now, but I could not tell you what they are. My brain obscures them from me. Whenever my beliefs or behaviors change, it was more of a changing of values and priorities. Yesterday I said "Ok, today is Monday and I am finally going to start working out because that will assist in achieving my health goals." Then Monday started fading without me having exercised and I said "Ok, I will start exercising tomorrow, Tuesday." Now Tuesday is vanishing, and I keep pushing off the start date of my new exercise routine. That is because my values and priorities changed. The goal of long-term health benefits kept getting pushed back by other higher priorities and desires (including eating many potato chips).

Isn't that how decisions, including moral decisions, are made? There are 2 components: Objectives and Strategies.

We begin with an objective (and a list of them that are ranked and prioritized). Our objectives and goals and desires are not rational or irrational though. Enjoying chocolate is no more or less rational than enjoying vanilla, all else being equal.

Then come strategies for how to maximize fulfillment of our objectives. That is where beliefs or behaviors are rational or irrational. We learn which causes will have which effects. If a person enjoys vanilla more than chocolate, then they should shop for vanilla flavor rather than chocolate. That would be rational for them. If they enjoy vanilla most, then it would be irrational for them to purchase chocolate (all else being equal). Our brain has to use its best available data and logical thinking to determine what the best strategy is to maximize its pleasure and minimize its pain.

If a religious person who finds comfort in their religion avoids reading books that are critical of that religion, that is actually rational for them to do, all else being equal. The way to get them to change would be to highlight other values and desires that they possess which are even bigger priorities than religious comforts and would likely satisfy them even more. Then demonstrate that if they wanted to satisfy those larger desires, their best strategy is to ditch their religious beliefs which are holding them back.

 

[bilby]

To clarify: the idea that monstrous acts become non-monstrous if you can cook up some Scriptural excuse for doing them is the cause of much of the world's suffering, and you should not endorse it, whatever your rhetorical reasons for doing so. Winning forum arguments is not more important than helping or hurting real human beings.

He didn't endorse any such thing. Indeed, he is obviously arguing against exactly that.

That you see describing something as "part of Biblical theology" as an endorsement, and not a condemnation, is exactly the problem under discussion - religious people give a pass to those who claim religious motives.

To me, it's VERY obvious that ronburgundy is attacking, not endorsing, these monstrous acts, because the acts he describes are monstrous. And yet clearly you see the words "part of Biblical theology", and conclude that that's an endorsement of the thing described, even if that thing is monstrous.

That's monstrous. And is exactly the reason why devout religious belief is dangerous even amongst peaceful and kindly people.

Uh, no. He literally said "Their efforts are only abusive b/c their belief is false." In short, if Ron Burgundy "believed in the Bible", he would endorse the abuse of children. I do not, and would not, and condemn anyone who promotes such ideas or commits such crimes.

Sure. But that's you making a right from two wrongs, and declaring that it's better than being wrong in only one way, because it happens to achieve a conclusion you like.

IF the premises provided by the Bible were true, THEN the conclusions reached by the fundamentalists would be correct, because their reasoning from those premises is sound.

To fix this error by keeping the false premises, but using unsound reasoning to reach a more palatable conclusion is just stupid.

And an excellent indication that both liberal religionists and secularists derive their morality without reference to religion. Fundamentalists don't do that, so they end up with immoral beliefs and taking immoral actions.

 

[Jarhyn]

You're treating consciousness as though it's a dichotomous on/off switch where a person either has their own cognition at max center of awareness or it is as out of awareness as information that is completely inaccessible to them (like the theory of evolution is to an ant).

Consciousness is a continuum, and holding a belief is a constant ongoing event where it get activated by new info relevant to it, re-evaluated, it impacts how that info is process etc. It involves effort and decisions to apply or not apply effort. Being rational takes work, so being willfully irrational can just require the decision to avoid careful controlled reasoning and thereby shield oneself from any conclusion that new information contradicts the belief. There are countless examples including with randomized experiments showing that people do this and that how much they do it depends on how objectively defensible their cherished belief is.

Okay, thanks. Curious question then---do you personally hold any beliefs that you know right now are irrational? Do you engage in any behaviors that you currently know are irrational?



I am assuming I have plenty of irrational and false beliefs right now, but I could not tell you what they are. My brain obscures them from me. Whenever my beliefs or behaviors change, it was more of a changing of values and priorities. Yesterday I said "Ok, today is Monday and I am finally going to start working out because that will assist in achieving my health goals." Then Monday started fading without me having exercised and I said "Ok, I will start exercising tomorrow, Tuesday." Now Tuesday is vanishing, and I keep pushing off the start date of my new exercise routine. That is because my values and priorities changed. The goal of long-term health benefits kept getting pushed back by other higher priorities and desires (including eating many potato chips).

Isn't that how decisions, including moral decisions, are made? There are 2 components: Objectives and Strategies.

We begin with an objective (and a list of them that are ranked and prioritized). Our objectives and goals and desires are not rational or irrational though. Enjoying chocolate is no more or less rational than enjoying vanilla, all else being equal.

Then come strategies for how to maximize fulfillment of our objectives. That is where beliefs or behaviors are rational or irrational. We learn which causes will have which effects. If a person enjoys vanilla more than chocolate, then they should shop for vanilla flavor rather than chocolate. That would be rational for them. If they enjoy vanilla most, then it would be irrational for them to purchase chocolate (all else being equal). Our brain has to use its best available data and logical thinking to determine what the best strategy is to maximize its pleasure and minimize its pain.

If a religious person who finds comfort in their religion avoids reading books that are critical of that religion, that is actually rational for them to do, all else being equal. The way to get them to change would be to highlight other values and desires that they possess which are even bigger priorities than religious comforts and would likely satisfy them even more. Then demonstrate that if they wanted to satisfy those larger desires, their best strategy is to ditch their religious beliefs which are holding them back.

Honestly, yes. I know I hold irrational beliefs and I generally have a direct awareness of which beliefs those are.

Some of the irrational beliefs I hold are axiomatic: the universe exists outside of self, etc.

Some of the irrational beliefs I hold are, I fact, directly counter to my knowledge: that we have free will. Obviously, it may, probably IS the case that the universe is in some way deterministic, but operating on the belief that my introspection and attempts to steer are effective makes where I tend to end up more tolerable than belief any belief that I don't.

And some of my beliefs are just plain batshit, like causal adjacency.

I think that by holding these forms of belief and recognizing them for what they are and accepting that I still hold them, that any belief I have may fall to the observable reality proven by the others that they classify as this, and stand to be replaced at my earliest convenience of having something to put in their place.

 

[Brian63]

Honestly, yes. I know I hold irrational beliefs and I generally have a direct awareness of which beliefs those are.

Some of the irrational beliefs I hold are axiomatic: the universe exists outside of self, etc.

That presupposition is not irrational, I believe. We cannot support it empirically, but we have to abide by it anyway. In order to survive we have to start somewhere, our ancestors had to presuppose certain claims. Treating the objects we observe in the world as if they are real is literally a life/death decision. So it made sense to do at least that.

Some of the irrational beliefs I hold are, I fact, directly counter to my knowledge: that we have free will. Obviously, it may, probably IS the case that the universe is in some way deterministic, but operating on the belief that my introspection and attempts to steer are effective makes where I tend to end up more tolerable than belief any belief that I don't.

I hold the deterministic view as well. The fact that for you, thinking the universe allows for free will provides many benefits to you and is an illusion that you can reliably maintain (you are not confronted with data that directly contradicts it, and instead you can avoid the data) suggests it is a rational belief to hold. This example of yours has me undecided in other ways though.

And some of my beliefs are just plain batshit, like causal adjacency.

I am unfamiliar with that concept. But that is not as important as the fact that you say you believe it, while saying also that it is batshit. Something about those positions just does not reconcile with me. Maybe I misunderstand cognitive dissonance too much, and how a person can hold contradictory beliefs (do they realize they are contradictory, or are oblivious to it?).

I think that by holding these forms of belief and recognizing them for what they are and accepting that I still hold them, that any belief I have may fall to the observable reality proven by the others that they classify as this, and stand to be replaced at my earliest convenience of having something to put in their place.

Sorry, I do not understand this paragraph well. Not sure if it is mistaken grammar or just me being tired or other. Thank you still for your helpful response.

 

[jab]

To clarify: the idea that monstrous acts become non-monstrous if you can cook up some Scriptural excuse for doing them is the cause of much of the world's suffering, and you should not endorse it, whatever your rhetorical reasons for doing so. Winning forum arguments is not more important than helping or hurting real human beings.

He didn't endorse any such thing. Indeed, he is obviously arguing against exactly that.

That you see describing something as "part of Biblical theology" as an endorsement, and not a condemnation, is exactly the problem under discussion - religious people give a pass to those who claim religious motives.

To me, it's VERY obvious that ronburgundy is attacking, not endorsing, these monstrous acts, because the acts he describes are monstrous. And yet clearly you see the words "part of Biblical theology", and conclude that that's an endorsement of the thing described, even if that thing is monstrous.

That's monstrous. And is exactly the reason why devout religious belief is dangerous even amongst peaceful and kindly people.

I thought that Politesse is saying that many Christians today do not believe the Scripture with the literalism which ronburgundy ascribes to some Christians as the "correct" reading of the Bible. (Perhaps I have misunderstood both posts--certainly several years I have been involved in more theological threads here where atheists and agnositcs debated this--what does Christianity mean in relation to the Christian scripture.)

 

[Politesse]

Sure. But that's you making a right from two wrongs, and declaring that it's better than being wrong in only one way, because it happens to achieve a conclusion you like.

??? That bears no relation to my argument, as far as I can see.

IF the premises provided by the Bible were true, THEN the conclusions reached by the fundamentalists would be correct, because their reasoning from those premises is sound.

No. it wouldn't. Abusing children is wrong no matter what justification you can come up with. And the Bible does endorse me on that, but it doesn't need to for my statement to be true.

And an excellent indication that both liberal religionists and secularists derive their morality without reference to religion. Fundamentalists don't do that, so they end up with immoral beliefs and taking immoral actions.

I don't think either of those statements is true. Moral standards are derived from the many and various permutations of millennia of culture formation, and religions have been neither the only influence on the development of culture nor absent from it. Whether one is a fundamentalist, a liberal, an atheist, or whatever one might choose. But saying that does not give one a serviceable guide to morality. I have never, and will never, endorse approaching moral decisions without rational thought.

By endorsing the fundamentalist's theology, even to reject it, he is agreeing that "If the Bible is correct, and our interpretation of the Bible is beyond question", then it is okay to abuse children. This is a problem, because they very much believe both of those things. But most liberal Christians would not. So why is Ron attacking them, rather than those who are arguing for both monstrosities and the logic that leads to them?

Answer: because he cares more about attacking Christianity than doing anything proactive about the issues he's raising. Child abuse, for him, is just ammunition for a philosophical argument; it isn't really about the practice or opposing it, because if this practice stops, there will still be Christians, and that is the real offense to him.

 

[Politesse]

You and I view conversion therapy as abuse b/c we reject the belief in a God that admonishes homosexuality.

No, we do not. I see conversion therapy as wrong because it tortures the vulnerable to no good end. It is true that I do not think some celestial being cares about my romantic choices. But even if I did, I would not endorse the torture of children to get His way on the matter, any more than I would endorse using waterboarding to teach children not to steal cookies from the cookie jar. That's sadistic, and pretending God is on your side does not change that it is sadistic. We all have choices, and conservatives supposedly promote a theology in which those choices are of paramount importance, actually. Torturing and brainwashing someone is not conducive to respecting their free will, and it reveals a lot about the true mindset of the torturer meanwhile. They are caught in a very ugly contradiction in which they desire to have credit for their own choices while taking them away from others.