All religions are dangerous?

[_Yoda]

Moderator Note-

OK, guys, I split off the Japan discussion to the thread in Off Topic here.

Liz

[_EAllusion]

Well this thread got way out of hand. Was I replied to?

[_EAllusion]

First of all I agree with everything Clifford has said up to this point. However, it quickly becomes clear what he is getting at. Since relying on unreliable belief in this instance proves dangerous, this must also apply to all nonscientific beliefs, and as an atheist, he takes it for granted that all theists operate on unreliable or unjustified beliefs. The illicit leaps he is making should be obvious, but I can see why his rant resonates with people like JAK.

He isn't talking about nonscientific beliefs. He's talking about beliefs not based on any kind of evidence. Science doesn't necessarily include all evidential reasoning. I'm talking about any and all unjustified beliefs, admitting that there are ways to justify beliefs without evidence. (The term "evidence" can be understood in this way, but in times since Clifford it has a more narrow meaning). He isn't taking it for granted that theists operate on unjustified beliefs, but he surely believed this as do I, which is why it makes sense if you accept the former that the latter follows.

The problem with this philosophy that one must operate on absolute knowledge of things proved and justified

That's not at all what he has argued. He's argued that one must have one's beliefs justified on the evidence available - i.e. be reasonably formed. That's a far, far lower standard than the one you invoke.

A - In San Francisco two tigers escape, killing two boys. There are several scientific truths we can accept here, but the point here is that people go to the zoo operating on the assumption that zoos are safe. So who is to blame here? The zoo for sure, but also the victims who should have accepted the scientific fact that tigers kill humans.

Why would they put their faith in a zoo run by people they don't know? The zoo's safety track record should count for nothing since the ship's safety record counted for nothing.

You haven't read the essay, have you? Clifford actually goes into great detail talking about the evidential weight of authority. He isn't a naïve empiricist. He thinks one can be justified in one's beliefs on the basis of reasoning about the likelihood someone else has bona fide knowledge about something.

So is avoiding religion making anyone "safer"? No. The only way one can completely avoid danger in society, is to become an anti-social hermit.

No one is claiming that avoiding some unjustified beliefs will turn the planet into a paradise free of danger. It's just that the act of holding unjustified beliefs is more dangerous than not. That tigers eat people at the zoo does not change the fact that swimming pools are dangerous to young children. They are both kinds of danger. Saying tigers aren't dangerous because avoiding them hasn't allowed one to completely avoid danger in society is incredibly naïve. And I think I'm picking a nice adjective here.

Let's play with this and see if we can invert it:

D - Joseph Smith tells his friend to stop smoking. There is no current scientific reasoning for not smoking, but Joseph Smith claims it is something God doesn't want us to do. He says God wants us to take care of our bodies, and that smoking is killing us. Like any good rational thinker, his friend relies on nothing that cannot be proved by science, so he continues to smoke. Five years later his friend dies of lung cancer.

Who is to blame in this instance? Apparently, the man relying on faith had it right.

Accidentally. If I was playing around with a gun and accidentally shot my friend in the leg, which led to a cancer being detected early and cured, that does not change the fact that my behavior was fundamentally dangerous. I got lucky. Risky behavior isn't about the outcome, it's about the outcome likely to be obtained given what is known. If you like, I can explain this point in more detail if you like, as this is your main attempt at refutation. I think it misses the mark badly. Oddly, it isn't at all what James was arguing. I am more than willing to return to this point if you'd like. Happily, I had a similar conversation with someone else online and already wrote a decent amount on the subject.

Clifford reveals his bias here by refusing to allow the opposite result to be evidence that the man's faith was justified. He wants it both ways. If a man relying on faith is wrong, he is guilty. If a man relying on faith is right, then he is still guilty, presumably because he was only right by dumb luck. He has rigged the game from the start

He took it for granted that his audience would easily understand his point. Understanding that beliefs simply being true isn't enough to make them justified is a point universally recognized in philosophy since ancient Greece. Clifford wasn't anticipating you. A person's faith isn't justified just because what they have faith in is true. It's the basis for that belief that determines how justified it is. Blind faith, as it happens, is not considered a good epistemic practice. If you want to argue it is, then by all means do so. If you want to argue that beliefs are justified simply if they happen to be true, we can have some fun with that. It's all up to you where you want to go from here.

[_Moniker]

Eallusion, I started a new thread in Celestial (I may not have made that clear in my PM) as I thought it may allow you and dart a chance to hash out Clifford without the distractions and ad homs.

If you'd consider moving your last post there, I'd appreciate it. I'd love to follow the discussion, and I fear it will be lost in this thread. Thanks!