[MD] The End of Faith

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Platt,


>> 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?
>
> [Platt]
> To me it means 1) not threatening nor doing physical harm to others  
> because
> of their beliefs,  2) not verbally attacking them personally, and 3)
> protecting their right to freely express their beliefs no matter how
> objectionable you may consider them to be.
>

Steve:
This seems to me to be a good definition of tolerance or respect for  
other's beliefs, but it also seems to me that the idea of tolerance  
leaves what may be the most important aspect of liberalism which is  
that all ideas can be criticized.

I think your 2) is often taken further to say that we shouldn't  
criticize people's beliefs.


> [Steve]
>> 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.
>
> [Platt]
> Careful. Some have faith -- as you define it -- in reason.

Steve:
We have evidence that reason works, so no faith is required.



>
> [Steve]
>
>> 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]
> I think you can question anyone's beliefs including those who  
> believe that
> science is the final arbiter "Truth." Respecting other people's  
> beliefs is
> an intellectual level moral stance against bigotry.


Steve:
Respecting beliefs in the way that you described is moral. The  
pattern not questioning beliefs that are religious in nature is  
immoral. Why is this the one area where evidence and reason are not  
welcome?



>> 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.
>

Steve:
I think all scientists fit to call themselves scientists must see  
truth as something that can be questioned and is subject to revision  
with new evidence. Do you know any scientists who think their truths  
are eternal?


> [Steve]
>> Is Pirsig's description of intellectual quality as including
>> consistency with experience and logical coherence just another dogma?
>
> [Platt]
> It could be if someone takes is as the gospel truth. I don't think  
> Pirsig
> considers it etched in stone.

Steve:
Good point. It is an attempt to describe intellectual quality rather  
than to define it.

>
> [Platt]
> It is the actions of militant Islamist terrorists that we war  
> against, not
> their beliefs. Punishing people for their beliefs is a social level  
> pattern
> attempting to devour an intellectual pattern. Let us be vigilant  
> against
> thought police.

Steve:
I am not promoting punishing people for their beliefs, but I think it  
is moral to try to change their beliefs--fostering a taste for  
evidence and not giving religion a free-pass on intellectual quality.

I'm not sure how to do it in the case of Islamists. It is probably  
only moderate Muslims who can influence militant ones.

Regards,
Steve