This is possibly the millionth time this has been asked on OTF but - why should people have to actually provide a rational explanation for something they believe in, so long as they're not harming anyone or imposing their beliefs on others? Or do people think that the very existence of a person's faith (separated from all the vile things that get done in its name) is something that necessarily harms other people?

If such people exist, they're still giving tacit support to those that do project similar beliefs onto others. Part of the authority of religions comes from the numbers of adherents they can claim, with little regard given to the actual personal nature of that adherence.

However, I doubt that there is a single person anywhere whose outward actions are not in some way influenced by their religious beliefs or conditioning (or lack of them). A person's belief in the source of morality will always colour significant parts of their actions. For example, no matter how much you keep it to yourself, if you believe that actions in this life can result in punishment or reward in a subsequent life then it's almost certain that circumstances will arise when this belief affects your choices.

QUOTE:
Hmm, you say "pragmatic", I say "woolly".

You're right, you do seem to be arguing against a totally different point from the one he made.

Ly - I reckon there's a couple of things to say here. In the first place, all worldviews depend upon a great deal of belief which is not "strictly" rational. The closest thing to an exception I can think of is probably Descartes', which is itself theistic.* So I'd say *all* people, religious or not, should be a bit more humble about the external justifications of their view, the likelihood that people who do not share their own (largely unexamined) starting assumptions will find their positions rationally compelling.

The second thing, which follows from this, is that religious faith - just like its lack - is something that causes trouble in society when people insist that theirs is the only legitimate vocabulary in which to discuss common problems. But we're never going to have a single unified vocabulary in every field. This is usually not a problem - there just seems to be something associated with (but not intrinsic to) religion that makes both proponents and opponents feel some sort of virtue in not accepting others' descriptions of the same world.





*I don't think it works, but that's another issue.

QUOTE:
A person's belief in the source of morality will always colour significant parts of their actions. For example, no matter how much you keep it to yourself, if you believe that actions in this life can result in punishment or reward in a subsequent life then it's almost certain that circumstances will arise when this belief affects your choices.

See, that just is not a part of most religious motivation. Not even of fundamentalist motivation. I know there are obvious/notorious cases in which it is (though e.g. the effect of the 72 virgins as anything more than rhetoric is almost certainly overstated in the west), but there are very compelling counter-examples. Nutty religious Jews, for instance, don't appear to act much differently from religious nuts of any other description, though they have no belief in an afterlife at all.

Do you understand the words "for example"?

Yes, and I'm saying it's a poor example. Not only doesn't it influence religious believers generally, I'm arguing that it's very questionable whether it influences them at all. So I don't think it's a useful illustration of your claim.

harbinger of hope wrote:

QUOTE:
I have faith that my life will improve as I grow older. That's got sod all to do with religion though. It's called Positive Mental Attitude (PMA)

Wait until "management" decide to "outsource" your "contribution" to the "enterprise"

Even if my example is a purely hypothetical example - which it isn't - it's still an illustration of my point. I'm not making any general claims about tenets of faith common to religions, and to suggest that I am is obfuscation.

QUOTE:
This is possibly the millionth time this has been asked on OTF but - why should people have to actually provide a rational explanation for something they believe in, so long as they're not harming anyone or imposing their beliefs on others?

First, that's a pretty big "so long as", in both cases. Plenty of theism doesn't lead to harm, but plenty does. And the theist who scrupulously refrains from indoctrinating his or her children is in a minority so small as to make hen's teeth seem in glut.

Secondly, if you state an opinion in public, you ought to be prepared to justify it in public, even if you can show that it's harmless. Especially in a forum a major part of whose raison d'etre is discussion and debate.

Toro, ah shall say this only weuhnce. You often complain that people have got your justifications for theism wrong, and I daresay you're right that they/we have. But this would be less of a problem if you ever cited any.

Wyatt - firstly, if the implication there is that bringing up a kid agnostically is a "neutral" or "default" position, then you're wildly off-base. If it's not, I don't know what point yhou're trying to make.

secondly, the adversarial "they have to justify themselves, they have to..." position you adopt there is just the sort of thing I'm talking about.

thirdly, you either haven't paid the slightest attention to anything said by anyone other than you in our previous interminable debates on these matters, or you're being needlessly snarky and needling. Either way, I'm not much inclined to continue engaging with you on this or any other point at the moment.

Also, if the Bible is infallible, as is suggested, what about all the parts where it clearly contradicts itself or is inconsistent between different gospels or books?

QUOTE:
See, that just is not a part of most religious motivation. Not even of fundamentalist motivation. I know there are obvious/notorious cases in which it is (though e.g. the effect of the 72 virgins as anything more than rhetoric is almost certainly overstated in the west)...

Surely a more obvious one would be the reward of going to heaven rather than hell, as historically believed by billions of run-of-the-mill Christians?

Indeed. There are at least nine different creation stories, so "literalists" may fairly be accused of only having read the first couple of pages.

Actually, worldwide polling suggests that biblical literalists have, in general, a far lower familiarity with the Bible than other varieties of believer. innit.

Izbušen dana Ples wrote:

QUOTE:
Also, if the Bible is infallible, as is suggested, what about all the parts where it clearly contradicts itself or is inconsistent between different gospels or books?

And how come it could be ever be whittled down to what amounts to 'convenient highlights' by councils of men behind closed doors? If it's all true and if it's all infallible, don't we deserve to see all of it - even (what is left of) the Nag Hammadi scrolls?