Hi Marg,
You misunderstand the argument by JAK in my opinion. Let’s look at his words “Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”
But that isn't all he says. He goes on to insist all religious belief is dangerous. His assumes that all religions are about nothing except "turning aside" evidence and "replacing" it with dogma. This is like saying all democrats are about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. I could provdie examples of this, but it doesn't make it the established rule for all democrats.
What is dangerous Kevin is not what the man speaking on behalf of a God says but the dangers lies with an individual who does not critically think well about what that man claims God said.
In some cases yes, but not in all cases, which summarizes Clifford's position. People will act irresponsibly with or without religion. As a theist I am not going to simply drive without my seatbelt because someone from Church said God would protect me. This is an asinine example, similar to the one Clifford chose. Where has my religion replaced reason and evidence with dogma? In what way am I dangerous?
You see, JAK wants to assert, but he doesn't want to back it up with even hypothetical examples. Clifford's example isn't even religion related. He simply makes the leap EAllusion makes, and assumes that these kinds of examples automatically apply to every theist and every religion.
It is potentially dangerous to rely upon that man as an ultimate authority a conduit of a God.
In some cases yes, but in the example I provided above, that man was the only person who could have saved him from an excruciating death. Not based on science, or reason or "justified belief," but rather faith.
It is dangerous because reliance upon faith in lieu of reason and evidence
Again, this is something different. Give me an example where I rely on faith in lieu of reason and evidence. JAK seems to think a person cannot rely on both, or that a person who has any sense of faith, is completely incapable of being reasonable and justified in his actions, under any circumstances. He said all religion completely replaces evidence with faith. This is horsecrap.
Some religions are whacked to be sure, but religion is just one of many social groups humans like to cling to. It is hardly the only form of socializing that involves set rules and a devoted loyalty to specific principles. I suppose some religious whackos might say that you should play with rattlesnakes because God will protect you. That would be a perfect example of abandoning common sense for faith. But even
these people are considered idiotic by the majority of theists.
The problem with JAK's argument is that he generalizes too much. He is a reductionist that sees all religions as equals in every sense. He seems incapable of thinking more dimensionally.
good critical thinking means that individual is more open to the probability of making decisions which may cause harm to himself or others than if he used reason and evidence.
I agree. Now please show me a hypothetical example where I as a theist, would be less likely to act safely in decision making, than say an atheist like yourself.
You see, it is difficult to take you guys seriously if you cannot even fathom a possible scenario where my belief would cause me to make dangerous decisions.
Just because one claims to speak on behalf of God does not mean they can be trusted or relied upon to not cause harm or be speaking the truth.
I agree, so no argument here.
Religious groups tend to encourage complete reliance upon authority in the form of sacred texts (and the leadership’s interpretation) and in leadership dictates based on “faith” alone. Followers are not encourage to ever question leadership and sacred text.
Again, this is true as well, generally speaking. A good example would be my step-father who considers himself a Bible believing Baptist. But he isn't about to go do something stupid because a preacher tells him to. He knows how to use his brain as well as any atheist. Also, this brings up another point. The fact that modern religion changes in light of modern science and scholarship, goes against yoru claims that religion rejects facts and reason and replaces it with blind faith. This might be true for some fundamentalist sects, but what I am seeing on the whole is a willingness to bend where scholarship won't. For example, ths view that the Bible is perfect, inerrant, and that much of it is based on historic fact, is gradually getting less support among Christians. Now if what you and JAK said is true, and all religion doesn't care anything at all about reason and facts, then this trend would not be taking place. Even in Mormonism you see paradigm shifts take place when it becomes perfectly clear some of the older traditional understandings are disproved through science (i.e. DNA studies).
What you see are
ad hoc explanations and attempts to recreate LDS history, but what you don't see from the Church officials/scholars are declarations about how science must be wrong and that the people should just keep the faith at all costs.
So Kevin the problem is not having beliefs which aren’t true, because false beliefs may not be harmful or wrong. It is the encouragement by religion of accepting without question religious authority. It leads to individuals easily manipulated, credulous.
So in other words, the "danger" is that too many theists might be proved right in their faith, therefore adding credibility to their faith. I can see why that would piss off atheists, but that's their problem in my opinion. If they cannot handle seeing theism validated through experience, then they simply need to get a life. Again, this doesn't explain any apparent "danger" in any true sense. What is so dangerous about believing something based on faith?
Further, theists I know
do question. Nobody joins any faith without questioning. And if you join a religion without questioning then you were dangerous before religion entered your life. The only time you really see issues with people never questioning, are those who are raised in a specific denomination and completely conditioned by their parents.
The fact that good may come from relying upon religious authority does not diminish JAK’s argument. JAK isn’t arguing that no good can come from religious belief but rather that if one doesn’t question and relies upon religious authority based solely on faith in lieu of reason and evidence then whatever conclusions/actions etc are reached or used are not reliable.
JAK said all religions are dangerous. If you want to assume JAK is arguing on solid ground, then maybe you can take up the gauntlet he tripped over back on the first page. Do you want to explain for us how my belief in God is dangerous to me or to anyone else? I have asked this numerous times now. So far nobody is willing to give it a try.
Whereas if a person used reasoning and evidence they have a higher probability of reaching a reliable conclusion.
I agree that this is generally true. But the problem with yours and JAK's thinking is that you seem to think there is a clear dichotomy between religion and atheism where one side is all about accepting known facts and the other is all about rejecting them. From what I see, most of LDS apologetics is based on what hasn't been proved. That is something entirelydifferent from flat out rejecting what has been proved. They keep holding onto "plausibility "because so much about LDS belief hasn't been indisputably disproved. Of course that doesn't mean it is true either. I'm just saying that JAK's position is not grounded in evidence, even with regards to Mormonism. Not all facts are rejected. Very little is strictly based on "faith alone."
First of all in my opinion, you misunderstand JAK’s argument as I explain above.
No, Schmoe misunderstood JAK's argument and I think you have watered it down a bit. He makes his position perfectly clear. He said all religions are dangerous because they replace reason with faith. This is patently false. Some religions, such as the B'aHai faith, take pride in its position that they completely accept all scientific facts and investigations.
I think W. Clifford says it well “The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them
By that logic, if I read a horoscope for humor, and it seems to makes sense to me, then I will become addicted to horoscope reading and will blindly accept anything it says as true. Clifford thinks we need his parental guidance when we don't, and I don't see how this could possibly pertain to his ship voyage example. I mean what did the ship owner do if they made it to shore safely, tell them all that, in spite of the apparent damage to teh vessel, he had some sense of intuition that they'd be fine? And then, as a result, the passengers went about their way with an increased sense of trust in unjustified belief, becoming a danger to everyone around them?
Come on.
Again, seeing a faith based claim become truth would prove interesting to most people, but it doesn't mean they're going to suddenly become members of the Jim Jones sect and systematically begin to reject reason and facts as they occur.
And this gets back to what I said in my previous post to you (which you haven't replied to).
I haven't?
The problem is not a belief in a God, the problem is faith and complete reliance on religious authority which makes claim absent evidence on behalf of that God
Your characterization is overly simplistic and even wrong. You don't see too many people who have complete reliance on religious authority. For instance, how many Mormons do you think would engage in polygamy, just because the prophet said they should? I'd bet more than half would leave the faith within days and the Church would die on the vine within a century. Most people in religions today are simply socializing. That's it. It is simply a way for them to socialize with others who have the same thing in common: belief in God. That is why it is no big transition from Methodist to Catholic or Catholic to Baptist, unless one is a fundamentalist. They believe in God, but from my experience, all the mish mash with ordinances and regulation and strict loyalty is optional to them. I mean most theists don't even attend Church at all, and you think they are presenting a danger to society because they have "complete reliance" on religious authority?
It is the relinquishing of personal responsibilities to think and the allowance of religious authority to supercede one’s own thinking on various matters.
Well, just show me a hypothetical scenario where you think I might "relinquish my personal responsibility to think," simply because I believe in God.
Just one please.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein