All religions are dangerous?

[_dartagnan]

All we really need to establish is that holding beliefs in an unsound way is a dangerous activity.

But even this has not been established.

Kevin called my basic bullet point listing of why unjustified thinking is dangerous "non-sequiter"

First of all, I never misspelled non sequitur. Secondly, I don't recall seeing any "bullet point listing." I responded to your short post that consisted of a single paragraph.

You said: " I think all unjustified beliefs are inherently dangerous. Having beliefs untethered by rationality presents a greater risk for interacting with the world in undesired ways and expends our mental resources on thoughts and actions that could be more prudently used elsewhere. Both make our progress and interaction with the world more dangerous. Since I think religion qua religion involves unjustified beliefs, I think religion is inherently dangerous. That danger can range from incredibly mild to apocalyptic. Of course, rejecting religion doesn't guarantee one will be reasonable in their thoughts and actions at all times anymore than rejecting alien abductions will. But it is a step in the right direction"

I responded to your thesis statement since the rest of your commentary was just opinion based on assertion. But the fact is science today is what it is because of the milestones accomplished by scientists who operated on the assumption that God exists.

Perhaps it's his new phrase after using the term "placebo effect" to explain all manner of things, including stuff that has nothing to do with it.

For those who don't understand what non sequitur means, it essentially means that a conclusion does not logically follow. Just because a belief is unjustified doesn't make it dangerous. Or in JAK's argument, just because a belief isn't true or isn't confirmed by the scientific method, doesn't make it inherently dangerous. The scientific method hasn't confirmed many truths that are yet to be discovered.

[_EAllusion]

Allusion, you said "holding beliefs in an unsound way is danerous"

On the face of it I agree. But then maybe we have different ideas of what an unsound way is. If you mean suppressing reason and ignoring evidence then I would agree. If you meant separating faith from real world experience I agree. However if you mean believing nothing untill it becomes proven then I will decline to follow. That smacks too much of a hypercaution squelching the fun of life in service of paranoia.

The beauty of it is we don't need to agree on what constitutes sound reasoning to agree that belief formation in the absense of it is dangerous. As far as believing in nothing until it becomes "proven" I suspect that you are talking about having a standard of support beyond what normally constitutes sufficient reason. I'm just interested in having a sufficient basis for ones beliefs, whatever that may be.

[_EAllusion]

First of all, I never misspelled non sequitur.

Now if you could only use it properly.

I responded to your thesis statement since the rest of your commentary was just opinion based on assertion.

It's an argument. It's a summary of a much longer argument I just quoted from a very famous paper on the subject.

But the fact is science today is what it is because of the milestones accomplished by scientists who operated on the assumption that God exists.

So? What's that have to do with my argument? Modern physics owes a lot to people who believed in alchemy. Awesome. I don't think holding unjustified beliefs will make the world disappear in a puff or cripple people from contributing anything useful.

For those who don't understand what non sequitur means, it essentially means that a conclusion does not logically follow. Just because a belief is unjustified doesn't make it dangerous.

Yes it does. Hence my argument to that effect. I think that unjustified beliefs by their very nature present greater risk for our interaction with the world. Think of it like randomly walking down streets, vs. following street signs. Are you going to call any position you disagree with non-sequitur? Cause that would be a misuse of it.

[_Moniker]

For those who don't understand what non sequitur means, it essentially means that a conclusion does not logically follow. Just because a belief is unjustified doesn't make it dangerous.

Yes it does. Hence my argument to that effect. I think that unjustified beliefs by their very nature present greater risk for our interaction with the world.

I agree that there may be a greater risk -- for instance relying on God for safe passage for those that take arduous journeys. Yet, are all unjustified beliefs truly dangerous?


Why are they always dangerous? Shouldn't there be a scale? I can see that believing that God will provide protection and not equipping yourself is not too wise.

Can someone move this away from abstract for me?

Is the belief in a deity really make one dangerous? Or their thought patterns where they may have to compartmentalize this belief in a deity? There are evolutionary biologists that are theists (see Cornell Evolution Project on this http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/purpose.html) and these are individuals that obviously are educated, intelligent, are aware of the issues presented.

I just am not seeing that a belief in a deity -- or religion in and of itself -- is always dangerous.

[_dartagnan]

Now if you could only use it properly.

And I have. Your conclusion doesn't logically follow. Now that you understand how to spell it, I suggest you go read about it to further understand how it applies.

It's an argument. It's a summary of a much longer argument I just quoted from a very famous paper on the subject.

I am responding to the your first post in this discussion. There is no mention anywhere about references to a "famous paper" prior to your post. You're expecting me to read your mind?

So? What's that have to do with my argument?

It undermines it. It just goes to show how religious belief did nothing to stunt the scientific progress that was needed to give us modern science. In fact, it seems it to have served to bolster it.

I don't think holding unjustified beliefs will make the world disappear in a puff or cripple people from contributing anything useful.

Yet, you maintain the erroneous and bigoted conclusion that reigious belief is "dangerous." I am still waiting for your evidence of this.

Yes it does. Hence my argument to that effect.

I understand an argument as a process of reasoning. Anyone can assert, and so far that is all you have done.

I think that unjustified beliefs by their very nature present greater risk for our interaction with the world.

That is what you think, but that is not what you can prove. Anyone can create witty analogies where the religious man appears to have acted irresponsibly. That in itself doesn't prove religous belief is dangerous. One can also call upon analogies whereby someone chose not to act on intuition, which would have saved lives. So what? This doesn't prove the rational man is dangerous either.

Think of it like randomly walking down streets, vs. following street signs.

Clearly that is how you prefer to think of it, but that analogy has no merit and just goes to show your bigotry towards those who differ from you, in that they hold religious beliefs. Does it make you feel special to think you're among the tiny minority amidst humanity that isn't really "dangerous"?

I see now where you posted an excerpt from Clifford, which is really just a cut and paste job from infidels.org (surprise!). Apparently, you're unaware of any responses to his outdated theory: http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/will.html

Here is another excellent synopsis of the debate between Clifford and James, and a thorough explication of teh holes in Clifford's argument:

http://brindedcow.umd.edu/236/cliffordandjames.html

Are you going to call any position you disagree with non-sequitur?

No, that isn't what I do. I call an argument a non sequitur when label applies. It just so happen that it applies now, even if you don't understand what it means.

[_JAK]

Hi Moniker,
Let’s look at some of your points.

Moniker stated:
What does my not embracing their lifestyle have to do with dangers? I was relating that I find a great deal of enjoyment from DIFFERENT cultures and it broadens my perspectives.

Of course it may broaden your perspectives. However, you appeared to use your favorable impression as a defense for the Amish religious practice and belief as it benefited you and your children to watch them. That didn’t ameliorate their level of information regarding their own religious myths.

Moniker stated:
I did actually squat for a time when I was a young woman. I lived with people that shucked off ALL sorts of middle class American dictates and reveled in it -- guess what??? THEY WERE ALL ATHEISTS!!!! I don't think you know me too well. :)

In what way is this relevant to the issue?

The focus point is: “Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

Moniker stated:
If I could live in their world, I would!

I’m skeptical. What’s preventing you from having all your power turned off, cars removed, the purchase of horses and buggies and clothing which matches that of the Amish you know?

Moniker stated:
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let me, however. Yet, doesn't mean I don't yearn to go off into some hillside somewhere and rough it for a few years. I have lived in a different culture where there was no heat or AC and the plumbing was QUITE different.

It’s not relevant to the issue of “Dangers of Religion.” You would not be doing it for religious reasons. You have modern convenience presently and I assume access to quality medical care. What is the relevance to the issue?

Moniker stated:
Men peed on the streets (right next to me) and the homes were very sparse -- even wood heat was used. I've hung about in cabins with no electricity and no heat besides a fireplace and quite enjoyed it! Where is the danger there??? I'm not following you!

Obviously, you’re not following. The issue is “Dangers of Religion.” Religious mythology relies on truth by assertion. The danger in that is that that conclusions are unreliable or false. It has nothing to do with a choice you make personally about where to spend time or observe people in other religious/cultural environments.

Moniker stated:
No -- YOU must prove that they are dangerous! YOU made the assertion, it is up to you to prove your case. I relate that I enjoy their culture, their community, and what they offer the wider community -- you tell me how they are dangerous! I work with a teen that doesn't read past a 3rd grade level -- is he DANGEROUS, JAK? Why? 'Cause he's not as intellectually equipped as others? What should we do with him? There are other cultures where there is NO formal education -- should we swoop in and save them from their culture???

There is much irrelevant material in your statement and emotional as well, Moniker.

Faith-based conclusions are unreliable. That makes them inherently dangerous. Religion relies on faith-based conclusion and on truth by assertion. Those are dangerous as they lead to flawed, false, and unreliable conclusions blindly accepted to be truth. This is in support of the principle previously stated. Education is valued because it seeks to replace ignorance with information. Today, we have a propensity to favor reliable information.

In addition, accumulation of information gathered with transparency, clarity, skeptical review, and tested sharply contrasts with truth by assertion. False conclusions are inherently dangerous. Not only does religion use truth by assertion, religion attempts to promote dogma and doctrine, absence of fact-finding and information-based conclusion which can be tested.

Much evidence can be assembled to establish this, however, it cannot be assembled on a bb such as this. Previously, I presented various links to the only common denominator which we have (the Internet) in discussion here demonstrating the “Dangers of Religion.” No one can provide you with a comparison of the many, many religious doctrines and dogmas present in the plethora of religious myths present globally today.

Here are some examples of faith-based conclusions which the religious right (today) would like to impose by law on all American citizens.
• turn our nation into a "Christians only" theocracy
• further limit freedom of speech
• remove a woman's right to choose to end a pregnancy
• make it difficult to obtain reliable birth control
• attempt to frighten children with inaccuracies about sex, disease, and pregnancy
• bring religion into schools and teach it openly
• denounce evolution and prohibit challenge to "creation science" (pseudo-science)
• use fear and paranoia to discourage rational thought
• prohibit challenge to truth by assertion (Christian fundamentalism)
• censor television and movies
• make news organizations subservient to government censorship

These are some positions of the religious right frequently set forward.

Of course not everyone in the religious right would subscribe to all of these. It depends upon just how far religiously they are to the right.

Would you suggest that false conclusions are superior to valid reliable ones?
Would you suggest that evidence should be abandoned in favor of religious dogma?
If not, why not?

The answer is that reliable information is essential to avoid danger.

Reliable information is essential to sound reasoning.

Reliable information is critical to valid conclusion.

Moniker stated:
Men peed on the streets (right next to me) and the homes were very sparse -- even wood heat was used. I've hung about in cabins with no electricity and no heat besides a fireplace and quite enjoyed it! Where is the danger there??? I'm not following you!

JAK previously:
They are at risk as they tend to reject that which is accepted in the culture of this time.

Moniker stated:
Why is that a risk? Other cultures reject our culture and I don't see this as a bad thing? So what if someone doesn't like our current culture? Are you talking about America, specifically?

The thesis was:

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

Moniker stated:
Yes, but you've not proved your thesis, have you? Have you?? Did I miss it???

No refutation has been offered. In this an other posts the case has been made for reason and evidence over dogma and claim without evidence.

If it is your claim to the contrary, it defends religious dogma over reason and evidence.

Moniker stated:
JAK, well if it's not America which culture is the PREFERRED one that we should shove down everyones throats? Have you ever traveled abroad, JAK? I find that I'd like it if America was relegated to the back of the cultural brigade and someone else would take over with culturally educating the world! You first stated the it was the "culture of this time" -- WHAT precisely is THAT? Now, you've gone off into medical advancements?

What is the "culture of this time", JAK?

"Culture" is international with regard to the issue under discussioin. The defense of transparent, clear, tested evidence is not a nationalistic issue. By “culture of this time,” I intended to convey the prevalence and effort to access reliable information. While that culture is clearly present in the United States, it is also prevalent in other countries which value reliable information over propaganda and dogma.

That is, the reference was to those who pursue “reason and evidence” and reject “dogma and claim which lacks evidence.” That quite transcends nationalism.

Given the thesis, it seemed self-evident that the thesis was international in scope.

Moniker stated:
Yet, I told you that these Amish DO go to the hospital! These people do not eat the processed foods that we gobble down, don't sit in front of tvs and zone out, don't spend hours on the internet wasting hours, they spend their lives with their families -- with their community -- toiling their fields -- tending to each other -- enjoying their life! This is a bad thing????

It’s irrelevant to the issue at hand.

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

Moniker stated:
Uh, so if they present a danger then we need to get rid of all automobiles? WHAT? So what if one man in a buggy is dangerous? Anything that is dangerous needs to be outlawed and done away with? WHAT????

The primary persons endangered by absence and evidence and sound reasoning are those who lack both and the capacity to think free from erroneous conclusions from religion.

You make a straw man attack. None of your comment reflects upon defense of evidence and reason as the basis for sound conclusions. Danger lies in faith-based conclusions which ignore fact or deny fact. So you were correct earlier as you observed that you are not following me. Paraphrase as you do misrepresents the thought and language of my analysis.

You gave a fine example in your story which supported the view that reason and evidence are preferable to dogma and claim. Fortunately for you and the Amish in the buggy, you did not hit them. You quickly used reasoning and evidence in an avoidance maneuver which averted an accident.

Moniker, no one can entirely avoid dangers in their own perceptions. They can minimize those dangers by having information which is as complete as possible.

Religion is dangerous in that it marginalizes reason and evidence in favor of doctrine and dogma. Truth by assertion is a failure at discovery. To the extent that religion ignores information, distorts information, and marginalizes information in favor of truth by fiat, religion is dangerous.

It has nothing to do with my “say so.” It has to do with the principle which I have articulated with you in these discussions.

JAK

[_JAK]

The Amish and other individuals and/or religious groups which reject evidence, information, and reason are at risk. Your example on the road was a demonstration of risk and danger. While no one apparently was harmed in your case, the danger was described by you. You were traveling at 55 MPH, the Amish buggy was not. you described the danger.

The Amish were in that buggy as a result of religious belief(s). Thus, yes to your question: “Really?”

Yes. It demonstrates that religion, religious practice and beliefs are dangerous.

I drive to my parents house 'religiously' every week on Sunday.
I swear - almost every single week - there is either a horse drawn cart, or a really slow steam-engine, or a really slow old car, or something 'wacky' like that I meet along the way. Just seems to be a regular thing - there are quite a few 'old transportation' nuts around the area, and they like going out and about on Sundays.

...I don't believe there is any religious motivation behind doing this.

Are these people 'dangerous'?

ROP,

Let’s review the thesis.

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

ROP stated:
...I don't believe there is any religious motivation behind doing this.

Are these people 'dangerous'?

Nothing in the thesis suggests that it is only religion which poses danger. There is likely no religious motivation in a drunk driver who kills others in traffic accidents.

Drunk drivers are dangers for reasons other than religious motivations. Those you describe may pose danger -- unrelated to the issue.

JAK

[_Ren]

Nothing in the thesis suggests that it is only religion which poses danger.

I've never claimed that that is the claim.

There is likely no religious motivation in a drunk driver who kills others in traffic accidents.

Agreed.

Drunk drivers are dangers for reasons other than religious motivations.

Again, agreed.

Those you describe may pose danger

I don't believe they pose ANY danger if they are following the rules of the road (which you can do in any of the modes of transportation I mentioned)

unrelated to the issue.

It's related to the issue of whether an Amish person choosing to drive a horse-drawn buggy is - in fact - 'dangerous'. I think driving a horse-drawn buggy BADLY is dangerous, but then all groups have people who can't drive any damn thing!

...I don't believe the people who take a horse-drawn cart, or an old steam engine, or an old slow car out for a ride on the roads round my way are acting 'dangerously'. In fact, I LOVE to see them out and about.

...neither do the local secular authorities - otherwise they would ban them from doing so.


Oh and by the way - unless you deny the science behind global warming, I think it's a bit rich for the greenhouse gas guzzlers to be calling the people who are riding in horse-drawn buggies 'dangerous'. Their not the ones who are completely f****** with the planets climate.
The car drivers of this world pose a greater threat - on a much larger scale - than the Amish ever could!

[_dartagnan]

It’s not relevant to the issue of “Dangers of Religion.”

It is only an issue to bigot atheists. You have not been able to name a single "danger" unique to religious belief. You tried with suicide bombings, but came up short when I proved this activity took place in political/secular contexts.

You brought up the crusades, but only in ignorance. You do not understand that the crusades were in every sense, an act of self defense. Now you're forced to change your position by inventing a new concept of "danger."

So as your examples keep getting shot down left and right, you continue to ignore these refutations by pretending they don't exist. And what's even crazier is that you keep reiterating your silly assertions as though it is an accepted scientific law: "Faith-based conclusions are unreliable."

Let's take an example. The primary faith based conclusion we're talking about is that God exists.

How is that "unreliable"? How is that "dangerous"? You haven't even begun to establish such nonsense.

Until you prove God doesn't exist you cannot establish its unreliability. Are you telling me that things unproved, were never believed until science proved them? That might have been an easy sell in the 19th century, but not today. Scientists often speculate about things that are yet to be proved. This is part of human nature. Speculations must also be considered unreliable and "dangerous" according to your logic.

Those are dangerous as they lead to flawed, false, and unreliable conclusions blindly accepted to be truth.

There are many instances in history where an established truth was overturned. Hence, people who accepted the former were also "dangerous"?

Education is valued because it seeks to replace ignorance with information.

But you have no education obviously. You scroll the internet for your information and then pretend to have learned this formally?

In addition, accumulation of information gathered with transparency, clarity, skeptical review, and tested sharply contrasts with truth by assertion.

And for the fifth time, and probably a fifth time you'll ignore this point, you are merely arguing via assertion yourself. Where is the, "accumulation of information gathered with transparency, clarity, skeptical review, and tested," for your sily conclusion that religious belief is dangerous.

In all of your bigoted rants against religion you have failed to produce anything remotely similar to this. That makes you a hypocrite to boot.

Here are some examples of faith-based conclusions which the religious right (today) would like to impose by law on all American citizens. turn our nation into a "Christians only" theocracy

Now you're just lying. The Religious right is not interested in imposing a theocracy of any sort. Now you're just proving you're an idiot.
It seems clear you don't even understand what a conclusion is. What you just listed were alleged intentions. A faith based conclusion would be something like, God exists, I have a spirit, there is a heaven, etc.

use fear and paranoia to discourage rational thought

Pretty funny since that is what you're doing right this minute. You're using the scare tactics which are based in your own ignorance about Christainity.

These are some positions of the religious right frequently set forward.

You're lying again. How do you expect to maintain any credibility when you consistently lie? You're showing your true colors, as your rants against religion often change to political rants.

Reliable information is essential to sound reasoning.

Then produce some.

Reliable information is critical to valid conclusion.

Then produce some.

The thesis was: "Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

Yes, you tried pawning this off as something you thought of yourself, when in fact you're merely plagiarizing Clifford who argued the same thing.

No refutation has been offered.

Yes it has, but you refuse to respond to my posts because you cannot adequately respond to them. De ja vue, eh?

[_JAK]

Nothing in the thesis suggests that it is only religion which poses danger.

I've never claimed that that is the claim.

There is likely no religious motivation in a drunk driver who kills others in traffic accidents.

Agreed.

Drunk drivers are dangers for reasons other than religious motivations.

Again, agreed.

Those you describe may pose danger

I don't believe they pose ANY danger if they are following the rules of the road (which you can do in any of the modes of transportation I mentioned)

unrelated to the issue.

It's related to the issue of whether an Amish person choosing to drive a horse-drawn buggy is - in fact - 'dangerous'. I think driving a horse-drawn buggy BADLY is dangerous, but then all groups have people who can't drive any damn thing!

...I don't believe the people who take a horse-drawn cart, or an old steam engine, or an old slow car out for a ride on the roads round my way are acting 'dangerously'. In fact, I LOVE to see them out and about.

...neither do the local secular authorities - otherwise they would ban them from doing so.


Oh and by the way - unless you deny the science behind global warming, I think it's a bit rich for the greenhouse gas guzzlers to be calling the people who are riding in horse-drawn buggies 'dangerous'. Their not the ones who are completely f****** with the planets climate.
The car drivers of this world pose a greater threat - on a much larger scale - than the Amish ever could!

ROP,

You make interesting points.

We might agree (or not) that anytime we put cars on roads and highways, there is a relative danger. That is not to suggest that we walk only. We take calculated risks. One of them is driving on roads. Rush-hour congestion on icy roads with many cars poses greater risk (generally) than driving on a road with little traffic and excellent weather conditions for driving.

ROP stated:
I don't believe they pose ANY danger if they are following the rules of the road (which you can do in any of the modes of transportation I mentioned)

Even limited risk poses some danger. “ANY” is a generalization which is too broad. To consider the danger is very limited relative to other greater dangers presented to drivers on roads is a reasonable conclusion. So, we have a wide range of risk or danger in operating cars on roads (or even in our own driveway).

This is not intended to be argumentative but a clarification that the specific issue which you address regarding travel on roads carries with it inherent danger, even if that danger is regarded as so limited as to be dismissed.

I’m sure you appreciate that the fact that you “LOVE to see them out and about” is unrelated to the element of risk in being on roads and highways. Cars traveling in opposite directions on a two-lane road which must pass pose risk. They usually pass without incident. However, occasionally, those two cars collide. “Risk” or “danger” is not reduced to zero.

JAK