Holy texts should be respected by scholars

superluminal said:
I don't like the words "sancitity" and "sacred" much. They imply that a force-field of unquestioning sterility surrounds the "sacred" thing. Respect on the other hand implies a willingness to avoid certain things in order to not unduly offend people.

For instance, After reading your posts for a while now, I respect your position as a muslim and will not attack you regarding that anymore (others, however... grrrr). If religion was a private thing for the practioner, I would absolute respect it. But as it is, I find its intrusion into public policy one of the most dangerous things on earth. It's not a big stretch form saying your country was founded on thus-and-such religious philosophy to becoming a theocracy. I'd rathed pour sand in my eyes and record the scraping sounds as I blink for entertainment, than live in a theocracy.

So, no. Things are not sacred (to me) unless they are of immediate personal importance to someone I respect. Si?
Click to expand...


But doesn't according respect to someone's opinions (regardless of whether you believe in them) actually enable better communication?

I mean who are you more likely to interact with, someone who says "I respectfully disagree because ....." or " You are a f**king mindless pink unicorn, what the f**k are you thinking?"

From what I see on the threads in the religion forum, everyone (theists and atheists alike) are so patronising and intolerant that its hard to see what they achieve except a momentary satisfaction from insulting each other in the most creative way possible ( and some are really creative!) or maybe a couple of points increase in their blood pressure.

The only thing they do NOT achieve is an understanding of the others point of view.
 
superluminal said:
Mumbo-jumbo? I never said spirituality was mumbo-jumbo! Maybe the wild rantings of a madman, but never mumbo-jumbo. :p

Do you remember a post I made (I think in response to one of yours) that atheists can be just as "spiritual" as theists (even more-so)? I don't dismiss it at all. It's just that my source of "spirituality" is not a god of dubious existence. It's the mysterium tremendum of the cosmos itself.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean you specifically, I meant youknowwho :)
 
samcdkey said:
But doesn't according respect to someone's opinions (regardless of whether you believe in them) actually enable better communication?
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

I mean who are you more likely to interact with, someone who says "I respectfully disagree because ....." or " You are a f**king mindless pink unicorn, what the f**k are you thinking?"
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by "interact". Is punching in the nose interaction?

From what I see on the threads in the religion forum, everyone (theists and atheists alike) are so patronising and intolerant that its hard to see what they achieve except a momentary satisfaction from insulting each other in the most creative way possible ( and some are really creative!) or maybe a couple of points increase in their blood pressure.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent point. You'll notice the change in my avatar for that very reason (not that the occasional awesomely creative insult is not highly tempting).
 
baumgarten said:
That's true. Unfortunately, many people do not understand the importance of letting reality dictate to you. Imagine how much better things would be if every religious extremist asked himself if his beliefs were actually helping him. Does it really make sense that being a hateful person would get me to heaven? It is an easily answered question, but I imagine those to whom it most applies can't be honest enough to themselves to do it.
Click to expand...

IMO, it's an educational issue. People aren't trained how to think about information, how to relate to themselves, how to relate to others, how to figure out whom they are, etc.

baumgarten said:
Well, what to you is the difference between an agreeable explanation and truth? Or rather, what is the explanation agreeing with? I think that some people allow an experience to agree with an explanation they heard, when it would be better to fit an explanation to the experience. In the former case, the "agreeable explanation" is going to agree only with itself and not necessarily the truth, but in the latter, they are pretty much the same thing. Is this what you mean?
Click to expand...

In one case the explanation is agreeing with the needs of people (i.e. the bullshit binding them in purpose). In the other case reality is agreeing with the explanation.

baumgarten said:
Sorry about that. I was trying to illustrate how any interpretation that works suffices, but I lost my point in the process. The answer is yes, if you can find such an interpretation.
Click to expand...

Perhaps using reality?
 
Sure, we learn from reality. But we deal with it only through interpretations and models. When we discuss a dog, we are actually discussing a common notion of "dog," not the reality that is Dog, so to speak. So there must be an interpretation separate from that which it represents.
 
baumgarten said:
Sure, we learn from reality. But we deal with it only through interpretations and models. When we discuss a dog, we are actually discussing a common notion of "dog," not the reality that is Dog, so to speak. So there must be an interpretation separate from that which it represents.
Click to expand...
Fine. So what does this line of thinking do for you? Besides give you a hard-on for being able to string words together so cleverly? (No offense. This is directed at all of the philosophically inclined out there).
 
Personally, it allows me to avoid the mistake of putting any one model of reality up on a pedestal and giving it authority over another. It enables philosophical pragmatism, if you will. I find this useful, though someone more religious than I may find it exceedingly so.
 
baumgarten said:
Sure, we learn from reality. But we deal with it only through interpretations and models. When we discuss a dog, we are actually discussing a common notion of "dog," not the reality that is Dog, so to speak. So there must be an interpretation separate from that which it represents.
Click to expand...

Now look who's making an ass of themselves.

"Not the reality that is Dog."

Get a grip, man, pull yourself together!
 
baumgarten said:
Personally, it allows me to avoid the mistake of putting any one model of reality up on a pedestal and giving it authority over another. It enables philosophical pragmatism, if you will. I find this useful, though someone more religious than I may find it exceedingly so.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the single observed reality be the authoritative?
 
samcdkey said:
But doesn't according respect to someone's opinions (regardless of whether you believe in them) actually enable better communication?
Click to expand...

thats an interesting thought as it relates to where you draw the line in terms of respect. hitler believed that the jews needed to be exterminated in order for germany to acheive its "destiny". do you accord his belief respect in order to better communicate with him?

what about cult leaders and pedophiles and everyone else who believes in something patently irrational and damaging to society? do you accord their beliefs respect also in the name of getting along and communicating - no, i don't think so. there is no difference here really, when you give a belief respect, even if you do not share the conviction, you lend validity to it. i don't think that the validity holy books or scriptures or religious beliefs should be entertained by a rational society, so demanding that they be seen as the inaccurate and archaic stories that they are is a sacrifice i would be willing to make even if it damages my ability to communicate with people whose only agenda is to further the acceptance of these ideals and their integration into wider society.
 
charles cure said:
thats an interesting thought as it relates to where you draw the line in terms of respect. hitler believed that the jews needed to be exterminated in order for germany to acheive its "destiny". do you accord his belief respect in order to better communicate with him?

what about cult leaders and pedophiles and everyone else who believes in something patently irrational and damaging to society? do you accord their beliefs respect also in the name of getting along and communicating - no, i don't think so. there is no difference here really, when you give a belief respect, even if you do not share the conviction, you lend validity to it. i don't think that the validity holy books or scriptures or religious beliefs should be entertained by a rational society, so demanding that they be seen as the inaccurate and archaic stories that they are is a sacrifice i would be willing to make even if it damages my ability to communicate with people whose only agenda is to further the acceptance of these ideals and their integration into wider society.
Click to expand...

Of course I do not mean fundamentalists or dictators; but surely you do not mean to say that every theist fits only these two categories?

Thats like saying all white men are racists or all Germans are Nazis.

There are a lot of theists in the world who follow their religion only for spiritual reasons and no other; if you think attacking someone's core belief will change it why all you have to do is examine your own beliefs to know how hard it is to shed what one REALLY believes in. Attacking someone for his/her belief only makes them defensive and may precipitate the very thing you fear, a desire to fight back...so how can you conceive of this as a rational approach? You cannot make someone "see" something some way merely because that way appears right to you. It will be resented just as you would resent it if a theist did the same to you. Tolerance and compassion are an integral part of a mixed society; without it, there is no resolution.
 
charles cure said:
charles cure said:
thats an interesting thought as it relates to where you draw the line in terms of respect. hitler believed that the jews needed to be exterminated in order for germany to acheive its "destiny". do you accord his belief respect in order to better communicate with him?
Click to expand...

Was Mein Kampf taken too seriously or not seriously enough?

Heads in sand caused World War II.

charles cure said:
....when you give a belief respect, even if you do not share the conviction, you lend validity to it.
Click to expand...

To the contrary, if you have not bothered to respect that which you disagree with, your disagreement is invalid.

I am happy enough to be disagreed with when somebody appears at least to have understood my position.

I am not so keen to bother with those who think they know better than I do what my position is.

--- Ron.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top