[MD] The End of Faith

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Platt, Ron

>
>> Steve:
>> Where do you stand on the questions I posed?
>> "Does the MOQ oppose dogmatic religion?
>
> [Platt]
> I think the MOQ opposes dogma of any kind, including scientific dogma.
>
> [Steve]
>> I would say that since the
>> "truths" of religion are to be accepted on faith, social  
>> institutions  such
>> as religions are an example of a social pattern attempting to   
>> devour an
>> intellectual one. What do you think?
>
> [Platt]
> Most social institutions, except those that provide for change from  
> within, are
> examples of social patterns attempting to devour intellectual  
> patterns.
>

Steve:
Good point. The laws in the US and even the Constitution make the  
American government open to change in the way that religions aren't.  
(Of course religions actually do change over time, but they don't  
like to admit it.)

> [Steve]
>> Do religious beliefs need to be "respected" in some way since the
>> intellectual level's evolution depends on the social level?"


> [Platt]
> All beliefs should be "respected" except those that justify  
> physical harm
> to others. Someone's beliefs you consider mistaken may turn out to be
> valid. Intellectual level morality requires an open mind.

Ron:
> It's about tolerance of belief
> Not necessarily what you believe in.

Steve:
I agree that beliefs need to be respected in some sense of the term,  
but what does it mean to respect or be tolerant of people's beliefs?

Faith requires uncritical loyalty to the truth claims of the religion  
(which inhibit the evolution of the intellectual level). Faith then  
is the enemy of reason.

Does tolerance and respect for people's beliefs mean that we  
shouldn't question people's beliefs? We want evidence or at least  
logical cohesion before we "respect" beliefs on any other topic but  
religion. It's considered in poor taste to question religious  
beliefs. Isn't this social pattern of "respecting people's belief's"  
by not questioning them a social pattern that inhibits intellectual  
evolution?


Platt:
> It is certainty of belief (dogmatism) that leads to
> trouble, whether religious or otherwise. The crowning glory of  
> science is
> the belief that all their "truths" are provisional. Unfortunately,  
> some
> scientists as well as a lot of lay people forget that.


Is Pirsig's description of intellectual quality as including  
consistency with experience and logical coherence just another dogma?

Religions promote the idea that it is not just okay to believe things  
without evidence or cohesive rationale, it is actually a virtue to do  
so. This seems to me (and Harris) to be a very dangerous pattern of  
thought.

"Religious moderates—by refusing to question the legitimacy of  
raising children to believe that they are Christians, Muslims, and  
Jews—tacitly support the religious divisions in our world. They also  
perpetuate the myth that a person must believe things on insufficient  
evidence in order to have an ethical and spiritual life. While  
religious moderates don't fly planes into buildings, or organize  
their lives around apocalyptic prophecy, they refuse to deeply  
question the preposterous ideas of those who do."--Sam Harris

The result is that we can't talk about the fundamental issue in the  
war on terror, which is faith in dogma (like it is a Muslim's duty to  
fight the infidels and that martyrs will be rewarded in an afterlife  
for doing so) because though the actions of militant Islamists are  
criticized, we can't question their faith. Instead we have a war on  
"terror" while the true enemy to civilization remains unnamed.

Regards,
Steve