|
twodot posted:The claim that religion and science don't conflict because Good Religions don't bother to make claims science can test, and we can just ignore Bad Religions that do make claims science has disprove because they're bad doesn't make any sense to me. That there exists religions that claim evolution didn't happen is just true. These religions are necessarily in conflict with science. The only religions that claim that evolution didn't happen are religions or denominations founded in the 19th and 20th centuries with the specific intention of lashing out against science. Many of the anti-science beliefs people traditionally ascribe to medieval religion, like flat-Eartherism or young-Earth creationism, are things that sprang up as part of modern fundamentalist movements. The idea that there has been a deep historical conflict between science and religion, while widespread, is largely a myth. RasperFat posted:I am also a feminist, and I think that religion plays a large role in reinforcing gender stereotypes. But I appreciate the assumption that I hate women and have no emotional intelligence. Religion is just a delivery vehicle for existing tradition and culture. It's not that religion's views of women are holding society's views of women back, it's that society's views of women are holding religion's views of women back. When society's views on women change, religion will follow along. For example, just look at Judaism, which ranges from Ultra-Orthodox Haredi Judaism (which often ends up with segregation between genders in public to avoid the "immodesty" of physical contact with women) to Reform Judaism (which features full gender equality and removes most of the discrimination against women from traditional Judaism). Societies with progressive views on gender tend to have more Reform Jews and fewer adherents of the more Orthodox schools. There have been several Christian denominations that imposed much less inequality on women as well, though none of them really became major denominations and many of them faced resistance against those conditions from their followers hundreds of years ago. Ultimately, the reason most religions discriminate against women is because most societies discriminate against women, and firmly anchored those misogynistic norms in their religions while rejecting non-misogynistic religions. The misogyny of religion isn't driving the misogyny of society, it's driven by the misogyny of society.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Don't kid yourself, this is hostile as gently caress. It may be justified, but it's hostile. That is also my position, justifiable is not the same as non-hostile and I think it's both weird and also comes across as disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
In that case am I also being hostile against vegetarians when I don't care what you eat as long as you leave me and others to eat meat whenever we want?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:In that case am I also being hostile against vegetarians when I don't care what you eat as long as you leave me and others to eat meat whenever we want? You are if the vegetarians consider meat eating to be immoral, in the same way that you would probably have a hostile relationship with someone who thinks, for example, that you should be entitled to whatever healthcare you want as long as you don't expect them to fund it with tax money. The state exists to enforce certain behaviors on society, and that enforcement should generally be contingent on support within the populace for those behaviors, founded on the belief that those behaviors are required for society to be just. It doesn't make a lot of sense to suggest that the state essentially going laissez faire on some issues is not a form of hostility when the party you're dealing with believes that those issues carry a moral imperative, otherwise the political right would be equally justified in saying that the state stepping back and letting free market capitalism sort everything out is also justified on the basis that they don't think that's a moral issue. Far more sensible and consistent, I think, to recognize that state refusal to adopt a political stance is hostility towards people who think it should, regardless of the position, and simply accept that you're fighting on equal political footing against your opponent. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The misogyny of religion isn't driving the misogyny of society, it's driven by the misogyny of society. I also don't like this idea many "benign atheists" (which I assume you are?) have that is more or less, and I fear exaggerating it, that religion is this blank slate with zero causal power to influence behavior, just a blank slate for your and your society's demons. This is totally the opposite of what religious people usually say. Actually religious people will tell you it is just their belief - their specific belief - that makes them moral, that makes them who you are. And many of them will say that yes, while they see some value in other religions, it is just their Islam, their Catholicism, that makes them moral - that it is not just random chance of birth that they are a muslim or a catholic, but that they are muslim because Islam is the best religion. I think to take these people serious, as persons, as human beings, requires engaging with that, and to some extent accepting it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:In that case am I also being hostile against vegetarians when I don't care what you eat as long as you leave me and others to eat meat whenever we want? If you insist that vegetarian restaurants must cater for e.g. a hunting club or be sued out of business then you are being hostile to vegetarians.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:If you insist that vegetarian restaurants must cater for e.g. a hunting club or be sued out of business then you are being hostile to vegetarians. I don't think a restaurant should get to deny service to someone because they are member of a hunting club, but they would still get to serve them as per their menu, so that hunter is getting a salad rather than a burger just like anyone else.  But yea I see the point being made.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:If you insist that vegetarian restaurants must cater for e.g. a hunting club or be sued out of business then you are being hostile to vegetarians. They should provide the same catering as they would otherwise, but nobody (who isn't an idiot) would force them to cater to a hunting club by serving meat. Also, being a hunter is a choice, unlike being gay or a black person, which is the parallel you're trying to make here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The only religions that claim that evolution didn't happen are religions or denominations founded in the 19th and 20th centuries with the specific intention of lashing out against science. Many of the anti-science beliefs people traditionally ascribe to medieval religion, like flat-Eartherism or young-Earth creationism, are things that sprang up as part of modern fundamentalist movements. The idea that there has been a deep historical conflict between science and religion, while widespread, is largely a myth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Also, being a hunter is a choice, unlike being gay or a black person, which is the parallel you're trying to make here. I think the point is that forcing them to cater to blacks or gays is also hostile, though I'm actually happy to be hostile towards racists and bigots so no problem there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:I think the point is that forcing them to cater to blacks or gays is also hostile, though I'm actually happy to be hostile towards racists and bigots so no problem there. That's not a very useful definition of hostile to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Trivially, you can't separate this society from its religion. That is, this society is partially constituted by its religiosity. So I don't think you can so confidently make this claim. If you can't separate the religion from the society, then you can't reasonably blame the behaviors on the religion alone rather than the society it's part of. By definition, though, the majority religion in a society is going to be the one whose teachings most of the society largely agrees with. If society's beliefs shift, religion will (eventually) shift as well. That's not unique to religion at all. Almost everyone thinks that their exact set of beliefs is the most correct and that, while other similar beliefs may be acceptable, they're still inferior to the one true belief system. Just look at the militant atheists who poo poo on stuff like liberation theology or Quakerism because, even though it broadly agrees with their political and moral opinions on many subjects, it still believes in a magic sky wizard and is therefore categorically inferior to belief systems dependent solely on cold rational logic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:I think the point is that forcing them to cater to blacks or gays is also hostile, though I'm actually happy to be hostile towards racists and bigots so no problem there. I was trying to specifically address catering gay weddings rather than serving gay people generally, but yeah. Hostility isn't necessarily wrong, but I think it's important to be honest about these things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That's not a very useful definition of hostile to me. It's quite useful in the sense that Marx's characterization of bourg/prole relationships is useful. In that just as nobody in their right mind should buy it when the bourg tells you that they're on your side, nobody who believes in non-secular moral obligations should buy it when people say that actually secular states are on everybody's side.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Not sure if that should make a difference for this argument but I do think the hostility from the left is mainly in response and push back against some initial hostility (in the restaurant example it would be baseless discrimination) coming from the religious side.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:How? I'm meaning the way he construes science to plug his science of morality schtick. which completely ignores the whole is ought problem: “Science simply represents our best effort to understand what is going on in the universe,” the trump tutelage posted:No, it does not. "When you are adhering to the highest standards of logic and evidence, you are thinking scientifically." is also not a useful definition of science that would differentiate it from any number of pseudosciences (which includes his own). Harris is at least good at being entertaining when he's being clowned on by people who actually know what they are talking about like that security engineer dude or Chomsky. Danger fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Danger posted:"When you are adhering to the highest standards of logic and evidence, you are thinking scientifically." is also not a useful definition of science that would differentiate it from any number of pseudosciences (which includes his own). Harris is at least good at being entertaining when he's being clowned on by people who actually know what they are talking about like that security engineer dude or Chomsky. By definition, pseudoscience is not well-known for its high standards of logic and evidence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's quite useful in the sense that Marx's characterization of bourg/prole relationships is useful. Nobody is every going to support somebody else in absolutely everything all of the time, so by this definition everybody is hostile to everybody else. How is this at all useful?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You are if the vegetarians consider meat eating to be immoral, in the same way that you would probably have a hostile relationship with someone who thinks, for example, that you should be entitled to whatever healthcare you want as long as you don't expect them to fund it with tax money. So do you think that a dominionist angry that the state does not enforce Leviticus 18:22 and execute gays is no different than a secularist who wants the state to take no position and let people believe whatever they want about the issue? There's a big difference between advocating a positive right to do something and a negative right to be free from a society where anyone at all does a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Nobody is every going to support somebody else in absolutely everything all of the time, so by this definition everybody is hostile to everybody else. How is this at all useful? There is a difference between "not supporting" and "will advocate consistently for suppression of your political interests" MaxxBot posted:So do you think that a dominionist angry that the state does not enforce Leviticus 18:22 and execute gays is no different than a secularist who wants the state to take no position and let people believe whatever they want about the issue? Well I think that the former is wrong and the latter is a morally craven fence sitter but I would say they both should understand the inherently conflicting nature of their relationship. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
So it's morally craven to not want to force your personal ideology on all of society with the threat of violence? I think that there is a lot of natural variation in human society and wanting brutal punishments for those who don't think or act the same as I do is inherently foolish and will always lead to conflict. There's nothing craven about that at all. There is a fundamental difference there, the dominionist wants the brutal punishments while I do not. The dominionist would be free to live in a society where I was in control whereas in a society where they were in control I would be killed. You seem to want to avoid making a distinction between these two things when there is an extremely clear distinction. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:So what? Religions that claim evolution didn't happen still exist. Why do I care when or why a religion was founded? Religions, broadly speaking, both make empirical claims and reject any working mechanism to validate those claims, any such system is necessarily going to come into conflict with science eventually, even if historically religions have avoided making empirical claims current science can investigate. (Note: I disagree this is a recent thing, if someone could hand me a Bible with all the literal parts highlighted I'm pretty sure I could find a false claim.) Biblical literalism and inerrancy is a recent thing. Historically, religious scholarship tended to be of the opinion that much of what was written in the Bible was metaphorical rather than literal, and there were many errors and contradictions in the holy texts. If proven science contradicted what was written in the Bible, the scientific interpretation was generally considered to be correct and the Biblical interpretation was recast as an analogy or metaphor. The idea that the text of the Bible is literally true is mainly held by two groups of people: modern flavors of fundamentalist Protestantism, which reject existing religious authorities and understandings in favor of a back-to-basics approach easily understood by the common man without the need for a priest or scholar, and militant atheists, who don't care to educate themselves about religious history and scholarship and find it far simpler to just Google the text of the Bible and smugly demand scientific proof that snakes were once able to talk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:So it's morally craven to not want to force your personal ideology on all of society with the threat of violence? When you say you want the state to step back and let people believe whatever they want, are you suggesting they should be free to act on those beliefs? Because if you are that is morally bankrupt and if you aren't then you aren't asking the state not to interfere. How do you propose to stop people acting on their beliefs without the state stepping in and waving its force-monopolizing willy around? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:When you say you want the state to step back and let people believe whatever they want, are you suggesting they should be free to act on those beliefs? Because if you are that is morally bankrupt and if you aren't then you aren't asking the state not to interfere. So you are saying that a positive right to kill people who disagree with your worldview is identical to a negative right to not be killed for having a certain worldview?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If you can't separate the religion from the society, then you can't reasonably blame the behaviors on the religion alone rather than the society it's part of. Main Paineframe posted:By definition, though, the majority religion in a society is going to be the one whose teachings most of the society largely agrees with. If society's beliefs shift, religion will (eventually) shift as well. Now you can say you know better than religious people - that their religion is always the follower, just one of the arbitrary colors society dresses itself in. But without me even arguing that this may be factually false (I haven't even thought about it), do you see how that might be a bit arrogant? Danger posted:I'm meaning the way he construes science to plug his science of morality schtick. which completely ignores the whole is ought problem: Danger posted:"When you are adhering to the highest standards of logic and evidence, you are thinking scientifically." is also not a useful definition of science that would differentiate it from any number of pseudosciences (which includes his own) Cause, like, I'm a relativist who likes his Kuhn and Feyerabend, but that sounds really relativistic. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:When you say you want the state to step back and let people believe whatever they want, are you suggesting they should be free to act on those beliefs? Because if you are that is morally bankrupt and if you aren't then you aren't asking the state not to interfere. It depends. I'm okay with the state allowing conservative Christians to act on their anti-gay beliefs in some ways but not others. It should be legal for them to kick a gay couple out of their church, but not out of their restaurant. How morally bankrupt am I?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:It depends. I'm okay with the state allowing conservative Christians to act on their anti-gay beliefs in some ways but not others. It should be legal for them to kick a gay couple out of their church, but not out of their restaurant. How morally bankrupt am I? I think that's a rather nebulous line to draw and I would be unable to construct a justification for drawing it. MaxxBot posted:So you are saying that a positive right to kill people who disagree with your worldview is identical to a negative right to not be killed for having a certain worldview? I have trouble with the concept of positive and negative rights because you can phrase almost everything either as a right to something or a right not to something, so whether or not you phrase it as positive or negative is really a matter of perspective and not a good basis for arguing what rights you should or shouldn't have. Stick to arguing for rights you think are good rather than trying to argue that positive or negative rights as a blanket category are more important. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:When you say you want the state to step back and let people believe whatever they want, are you suggesting they should be free to act on those beliefs? Because if you are that is morally bankrupt and if you aren't then you aren't asking the state not to interfere. Human society literally couldn't exist if we viewed positive and negative rights as equal, as no two people have an identical worldview and if any amount of force is justified against wrongthink we could all just murder each other for not being in total agreement, something you seem to be fine with. There has to be some amount of recognition that negative rights must take precedence otherwise coexistence is simply impossible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:There is a difference between "not supporting" and "will advocate consistently for suppression of your political interests" Not allowing you to discriminate is not suppressing your political interests unless you have no political interests beyond discriminating people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Human society literally couldn't exist if we viewed positive and negative rights as equal, as no two people have an identical worldview and if any amount of force is justified against wrongthink we could all just murder each other for not being in total agreement, something you seem to be fine with. There has to be some amount of recognition that negative rights must take precedence otherwise coexistence is simply impossible. Maybe there's forms of violence other than totally obliterating people and maybe sometimes it's perfectly ethical to employ them in order to stop people doing worse things? Who What Now posted:Not allowing you to discriminate is not suppressing your political interests unless you have no political interests beyond discriminating people. By that logic passing laws to break up unions is not political suppression as long as you are pro animal rights... Suppressing part of someone's political interests is still suppression.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Isn't being allowed to refuse a voluntary service you usually perform specifically because your religion tells you to discriminate against that group a negative right? "I have the right to not serve pizza to anyone, for any reason/for religious reasons" sounds negative to me. "I have the right to pizza" sounds positive to me. OwlFancier posted:I think that's a rather nebulous line to draw and I would be unable to construct a justification for drawing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Refusing a general service for religious reasons vs. refusing something inherently religious for religious reasons? From the position of the end user a general service and a religious service may be of equivalent importance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:From the position of the end user a general service and a religious service may be of equivalent importance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Biblical literalism and inerrancy is a recent thing. Historically, religious scholarship tended to be of the opinion that much of what was written in the Bible was metaphorical rather than literal, and there were many errors and contradictions in the holy texts. If proven science contradicted what was written in the Bible, the scientific interpretation was generally considered to be correct and the Biblical interpretation was recast as an analogy or metaphor. quote:If proven science contradicted what was written in the Bible, the scientific interpretation was generally considered to be correct and the Biblical interpretation was recast as an analogy or metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Maybe there's forms of violence other than totally obliterating people and maybe sometimes it's perfectly ethical to employ them in order to stop people doing worse things? You're still not recognizing that there's a fundamental difference between asking the government to enforce positive rights and enforcing a negative right. In the former case it involves direct suppression of people's rights where the latter involves someone being bothered that some other's rights are not being suppressed by government, huge difference. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:And the importance to the end user is the deciding criterion?.. Always? The only one? If the reason you're constructing the law is the welfare of the citizen then what is important to the citizen's wellbeing is kind of the significant factor. MaxxBot posted:You're still not recognizing that there's a fundamental difference between asking the government to enforce positive rights and enforcing a negative right. In the former case it involves direct suppression of people's rights where the latter involves someone being bothered that some other's rights are not bring suppressed by government, huge difference. As I said, the difference between positive and negative rights is entirely a matter of perspective and it makes no sense to say that one class is more important than the other because I could just rephrase a bunch of poo poo to make it a positive or negative right. "I have a right not to die" vs "I have a right to healthcare" OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
twodot posted:You've completely failed to understand my point, and all of this is totally irrelevant, except here: OwlFancier posted:As I said, the difference between positive and negative rights is entirely a matter of perspective OwlFancier posted:If the reason you're constructing the law is the welfare of the citizen then what is important to the citizen's wellbeing is kind of the significant factor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If the reason you're constructing the law is the welfare of the citizen then what is important to the citizen's wellbeing is kind of the significant factor. So you'd view a government that enacts a mass genocide campaign against 100% of its population and one that fails to implement UHC for 100% of its population as identical? That's a pretty bizarre and hosed up worldview that's entirely detached from reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What definition of positive vs. negative are you using? I think Isaiah Berlin would vehemently disagree with you. As I said I really don't understand the distinction. To use your earlier example, "I have a right to pizza" could be rephrased as "I have the right to not be refused pizza because that causes me harm" Cingulate posted:What about laws which aim not to increase welfare, but to protect the rights of citizens, including immaterial rights? MaxxBot posted:So you'd view a government that enacts mass genocide campaign against 100% of its population and one that fails to implement UHC for 100% of its population as identical? That's a pretty bizarre and hosed up worldview that's entirely detached from reality. What are you talking about? I just said that positive/negative rights are a loving stupid way to judge things, laws are good because they increase human welfare. Imperfect implementation of UHC is obviously better than just killing everyone, except from a particularly committed nihilist's perspective. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
twodot posted:If you write this sentence, but you need to write "generally" instead of "literally always every single time, no exceptions whatsoever" then that presents a historic and ongoing conflict between science and religion. So long as the Bible contains any empirical claims, that's an opportunity for conflict between science and religion. It doesn't matter if someone think the whole Bible is literal or 50% literal or 1% literal. Any amount of literal claims are subject to scientific review. The young-earthers are just convenient in that they both exist and are definitely wrong, the fact that they are recent or few is irrelevant to fact that they show that religion and science can be/is in direct conflict. Other believers have wrong beliefs about reality, it's just much more difficult to demonstrate they're wrong, or, often, pin them down on what they actually believe. Of course religion CAN BE in conflict with science, but it is not necessarily so. In these specifics about the Bible, while some people have taken parts literally, it does not follow that it is a document meant to be read so (nevermind the fact that the Bible isn't even a single document etc.) Your claim is essentially saying that because some white people are Trumpists, then all white people are terrible. And while I concede that there are many terrible white people, you would be hard pressed to prove your logic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 21:00
|
|
