Respect and Religion

[Papers of Indenture]

Papers of Indenture said: This line brings to mind Herman Hesse and "The Glass Bead Game"

Maybe, but I live in the opposite of an ivory tower environment; a poor neighborhood full of immigrants from every blighted corner of the planet. I interact with good people who are members of almost every major religion on this planet on almost a daily basis. Just today I chatted about espresso with a Hispanic convert to Islam, attended a meeting of a political action group with a Catholic nun, and thanked a Baptist minister for giving me a contact for some free compost.

I share your disposition. On Saturday I pondered philosophy with a Christian Missionary who I welcomed onto my property. Fortunately I was able to convince her that I have adopted a guiding philosophy that allows me to act morally without the need of a savior and I remain an unconverted heathen

[Ego]

Beliefs are beliefs. Actions are actions. If actions cause harm, the beliefs that may have caused them are irrelevant.

Wait.... WHAT!? Irrelevant? Jim Jones? 9-11? Withholding medical care to children because the parents believe in faith healers?

You don't actually believe that the underlying beliefs are irrelevant, do you?

Haidt wrote that wonderful article about trigger warnings, safe spaces and microaggressions on college campuses, The Coddling of the American Mind.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... nd/399356/

Students (and the university as a whole) become weaker by avoiding challenge. Some of the religious folks here were the most outraged. How is this different?

And Rigger, I gotta say, it is kind of unusual that you would be the person pushing this considering... as my better half would say, no tienes pelos en la lengua.

[Riggerjack]

Wait.... WHAT!? Irrelevant? Jim Jones? 9-11? Withholding medical care to children because the parents believe in faith healers?

Yeah. Jim Jones, nut job, lead a death cult, he died, problem solved. Belief was irrelevant. Bonus, victims were volunteers! Not to be callous, but there are much more sympathy inspiring victims out there.

9/11, all participants died. But there was a support staff. International crime, so really, this is a whole other kettle of fish. That being said, there should have been a lengthy investigation, followed by a published list of dead or alive bounties. Way cheaper, and more targeted. Again, belief isn't the crime, actions are. When association with someone on the list adds you to the list, there is no real threat, anymore.

Withholding medical treatment when necessary is child abuse. Prosecuted as child abuse. If you do it because you think it's better to treat a broken arm with gummy bears and tin foil, or the blessed hands of pastor Tim, is irrelevant. The action (or in this case inaction) is the crime. This is already on the books.

There is no need to add belief to our legal codes, attempts along those lines, (hate crimes) lead to more publicity, but less justice.

As for the bit at the end of your post, if the translator was right, well, I'm trying, on occasion, to be the kinder, gentler, riggerjack. And occasionally succeeding.

But I'll be clear that I may be completely off base, and the posts I'm talking about were not the ones that caused this thread. As I said, I have no skin in this game.

[Ego]

As for the bit at the end of your post, if the translator was right, well, I'm trying, on occasion, to be the kinder, gentler, riggerjack. And occasionally succeeding.

It is a compliment. You are not afraid to speak you mind. Stop doing that and we are all the poorer for it.

[Riggerjack]

I once worked with a very old guy, who was unfailingly upbeat. Everyone liked working with Warren.

But one day, he was cussing pissed at the office, and everyone took notice, and gave him space, myself included. The next day, he was back to his cheerful self.

My take away from that is that unpleasant behavior is more effective when it is rare.

Now I've never worried about offending people, and often think a solid dose of offensiveness can be a good thing. Thin skin needs scars, for just basic mental health.

However, it's not my responsibility to provide those scars.

I tried to explain myself to my best friend's girlfriend like this:

I need to be right.
I don't need you to be right, or acknowledge that I am right.
I spend a lot of time in my head, and will bounce ideas other people find startling out, to see what happens. I'm not trying to convince you that this idea I've been kicking around is right, I'm hoping you poke holes in it. That gives me a new way of looking at the idea. Refining it.
Making me more right, by reducing flaws in my ideas.
There is nothing more satisfying than finding out I was wrong about something, and fixing that.

This process doesn't work if I offend someone enough that they won't play, or if I hide behind polite and accepted ideas.

[freedomseeker]

Riggerjack, well put!

[Ego]

This process doesn't work if I offend someone enough that they won't play, or if I hide behind polite and accepted ideas.

I think I posted this link before...
https://hbr.org/2010/08/its-up-to-you-to-start-a-good

I do the exact same thing you do and I value people's willingness to poke holes in my ideas. One of my favorite and most valuable examples from the forum is here. Now, when I see something about placebos I not only look at it through my own eyes, I see it through your eyes as well. That is incredibly useful and I thank you for it. Seriously.

When we have to filter ourselves down to the level of the thinnest-skinned, we all lose the toughening we would have received. I am not arguing for unrestrained cage-match battles, just a reasonable level of disagreement where we maintain respect for the person without having to feign respect for every last thing they say or believe.

[Riggerjack]

Thin skin offends me. The concept that somehow anyone is so delicate that the environment should be changed for their benefit, is ludicrously self centered.

I live in a world with unpadded corners. It is a good place, and I welcome others to join me. On the other hand, I don't go around sharpening those corners...

[Dragline]

@ jacob

But even intention is measured by action. Consider:

Driving mom's minivan to the mall, no crime.
Driving mom's minivan to the mall, with a friend, no crime.
Driving mom's minivan to the mall, with a friend, who sees someone he knows, and starts shooting. The friend just committed a crime, but did the driver? Whether we punish the driver has to do with his actions before, during and after the crime, showing his intent, not his beliefs.
If someone hangs out with gang members, it is easier to make a case of intent, for any crimes in his presence. Again, actions.
To my knowledge, (limited) when people talk about religious crimes, they are talking about genitalia mutilation, or honor killings, or blowing up abortion clinics. All of those are premeditated actions, beliefs are implied in making the case, but action and intent are what the law requires.
I don't think I'm the only one capable of ignoring belief, or mental health, or just plain mean spiritedness as "influencing factors".

It is correct that almost all criminal offenses require BOTH an act and some intent to commit the act. For murder for example, at common law a first degree murder was "premeditated", a second degree "reckless" (like shooting into a crowd) or in the heat of the moment (a bar fight), manslaughter as reckless or grossly negligent. Murder is actually the only crime where simple negligence will satisfy the intent element, but we call that "negligent homicide" and it has lower punishments. The scope is expanded somewhat by accessory and conspiracy laws to people who do not commit the act, but act in concert with the person that does.

[Riggerjack]

Right.
But the original issue was at what point do we stop tolerating harmful beliefs?

I "believe", that the beliefs are irrelevant, the harm is where we draw the line.

When we start talking about needing to change others thoughts, we start getting uncomfortably close to thought crimes.

I believe in others' right to be wrong. It's OK, for you not to agree with me, and from a big picture perspective, it's better that you don't.

Even if I were right 99% of the time, (seems about right) I am better off sifting through the ideas already reached by faulty thinking, than trying to creatively think my way through the last 1%. More to the point, I am only right in 99% of my decisions. Your needs/wants/priorities will be different from mine. Different thoughts and processes will help you meet those needs. As a society, we are more robust, for having inappropriate beliefs.

This doesn't mean I respect faith based reasoning, but I do respect that it works for some folks, and that we are stronger as a whole, for what seems to be weak reasoning.

[Dragline]

Right.
But the original issue was at what point do we stop tolerating harmful beliefs?

I "believe", that the beliefs are irrelevant, the harm is where we draw the line.

When we start talking about needing to change others thoughts, we start getting uncomfortably close to thought crimes.

I believe in others' right to be wrong. It's OK, for you not to agree with me, and from a big picture perspective, it's better that you don't.

I agree. My flippant answer is "when they actually become harmful", which generally requires an act. It's notable that very few countries actually have the same kind of "1st Amendment ethos" (Lockian) of the U.S. Most operate on Hobbsian principles. Perhaps the best example of this in our lifetimes is the post-WW II banning of fascist books and ideas from most of Europe, particularly in Germany. Those laws are only being loosened up in the past few years, but its easy to understand the purpose behind them given the 20th Century history.

I think part of the issue is the lens or model of the world that you are using. Many of these discussions assume the model of the "world as a building or monolith", meaning that once you create it, everything becomes well defined and you always know what goes where and who is allowed in, where they are supposed to go, etc. In other words, there is relative certainty such that you can make all your decisions in advance about what kinds of beliefs should be "permissible." Everything gets bright lines, geometrical shapes and easy answers. The predominance of slogans is usually a clue that you are dealing with this model of worldview.

I take the view of the "world as a garden" model, where you have to go out there every few days and weed, make adjustments due to weather and other threats, and occasionally digging up parts of it. Sure, there are some basic parameters (let's try not to burn everything down, for instance, or allow animals to eat it all), but the gist is that it requires constant maintenance and adjustments, because unexpected things happen. Most things are not organized in bright lines or geometric shapes, but have fractal self-similarity like plants. Belief systems and their potential dangers are like this, too.

[jacob]

I "believe", that the beliefs are irrelevant, the harm is where we draw the line.

When we start talking about needing to change others thoughts, we start getting uncomfortably close to thought crimes.

I have a thought that if I convince a random person that we can both fly and then proceed to jump off of the roof.

At what point does my idea become harmful?
* When I convince the person?
* When we jump?
* When we hit the ground?

I also have a thought that I convince a random person that smoking is good for you and then we both light up.

At what point does smoking become harmful?
* When we inhale?
* When we get lung cancer or COPD?
* Never because we never got sick?
* Never because the joy of smoking outweighs all other considerations?

I have a hand grenade. At which point does the hand grenade become harmful?
* When I use it for juggling?
* When I leave it around?
* When I pull the pin?
* When it explodes?

I teach creationism in school. At which point does that become harmful?
* When my students believe in my teaching?
* When they can't get into university?
* When they can't find jobs because my state develops a bad reputation for hooky educational standards?
* When biosciences can't recruit qualified scientists?

It's not always possible to see where the line is nor agree on where to draw it. In particular, when everybody finally agrees that an idea is harmful, it might be too late to do anything about it. To me this is really a question of the degree to which we tolerate of all ideas including idiotic and destructive ones and if not, exactly how much stupidity should be accept. E.g. put 100 people in a room with a hand grenade. How many with a belief that it's harmless should we respect before we disallow grenades? A single person? 1/3 minority? Half?

In particular, suppose it's hard to determine if something is harmful. Should we then give more say to experts or should we always count votes?

In particular, is voting about something a good way to establish whether something is harmful?

[BRUTE]

even if lines are drawn, there's still a moral conundrum. if 99 of the people in the room never misuse their grenade, is it moral to take away their right to hand grenades because some other idiot is going to blow himself up?

brute thinks this is basically the dichotomy between individual and collective. is it moral to prohibit individuals from smoking/owning guns/drunk driving/owning fascist propaganda/not wearing seatbelts because some small percentage of them will act irresponsibly or get unlucky? is the collective really more important than the individual? who decides?

and if voting is or isn't a good way to establish whether something is harmful, is it a good way to determine what's moral?

brute basically thinks that the drawing of lines and the morality are both personal preferences, and will thus differ per individual human. what astonishes brute is that almost nobody else seems to realize this - most humans seem to believe that there is "clearly" one exact set of lines to draw and moralities to conform to, and it's usually the exact one they grew up with or were taught first.

how any human can be so confident in something so arbitrary as morality is confusing to brute.

[jennypenny]

In particular, suppose it's hard to determine if something is harmful. Should we then give more say to experts or should we always count votes?

In particular, is voting about something a good way to establish whether something is harmful?

But we don't vote on "somethings" except for the occasional referendum. We vote to determine who serves in the Legislature and as President. The court system determines if something is harmful or someone has been harmed, and that relies on experts. Isn't the court system how most societal and behavioral change gets pushed through ultimately?

If you're talking about climate change specifically, I'm not sure why you think religion is the problem. Only Evangelicals formally oppose action on climate change. Catholics, Mainline Protestant Churches, and other non-Christian faiths have made strong statements in support of action to combat climate change. If you see the problem as being with 'believers' who don't follow their church's teaching and deny climate change or oppose any action to confront the problem, then you should be supporting those religions in their efforts to change the minds of their congregants instead of condemning them.

[leeholsen]

I "believe", that the beliefs are irrelevant, the harm is where we draw the line.

When we start talking about needing to change others thoughts, we start getting uncomfortably close to thought crimes.

I have a thought that if I convince a random person that we can both fly and then proceed to jump off of the roof.

At what point does my idea become harmful?
* When I convince the person?
* When we jump?
* When we hit the ground?

I teach creationism in school. At which point does that become harmful?
* When my students believe in my teaching?
* When they can't get into university?
* When they can't find jobs because my state develops a bad reputation for hooky educational standards?
* When biosciences can't recruit qualified scientists?

Then at what point does having sex education classes and drug education classes become harmful ?

I would propose that if a study was done, those two are more harmful than teaching creationism. Of course a high school science teacher on average will not have much depth to defend their teaching but neither would the average high school science teacher not teaching creationism.

[leeholsen]

In particular, suppose it's hard to determine if something is harmful. Should we then give more say to experts or should we always count votes?

In particular, is voting about something a good way to establish whether something is harmful?

If you're talking about climate change specifically, I'm not sure why you think religion is the problem. Only Evangelicals formally oppose action on climate change.

not true. pew research poll says only 44% of catholics and 48% believe in global warming and i'm sure if i queried the skeptics i know, few of them would be evangelicals.

[jennypenny]

In particular, suppose it's hard to determine if something is harmful. Should we then give more say to experts or should we always count votes?

In particular, is voting about something a good way to establish whether something is harmful?

If you're talking about climate change specifically, I'm not sure why you think religion is the problem. Only Evangelicals formally oppose action on climate change.

not true. pew research poll says only 44% of catholics and 48% believe in global warming and i'm sure if i queried the skeptics i know, few of them would be evangelicals.

But that was my point. The churches aren't the problem. Most churches have taken a clear position on climate change, so the skepticism isn't coming from their churches or from their faith. It's a cultural issue. We should support the churches that are trying to change the culture instead of condemning all religion or assuming that anyone with a capacity for faith is intellectually suspect.

Church leaders in 75% of of the Christian denominations in the US have decided to support action to slow climate change. One could assume that the leaders in any church are the most faithful, and yet they seem capable of evaluating the facts and coming to the same conclusions as the scientific community. Faith didn't impede their judgment. It's a question of culture, not religiosity. It's also a question of whether the goal is to be 'right' or whether the goal is to change minds and fight climate change. If it's the second, then dismissing religious institutions out of hand because of personal feelings towards religion is irrational and unproductive.

[BRUTE]

Then at what point does having sex education classes and drug education classes become harmful ?

I would propose that if a study was done, those two are more harmful than teaching creationism.

please elaborate

[jacob]

But that was my point. The churches aren't the problem. Most churches have taken a clear position on climate change, so the skepticism isn't coming from their churches or from their faith. It's a cultural issue. We should support the churches that are trying to change the culture instead of condemning all religion or assuming that anyone with a capacity for faith is intellectually suspect.

Replace "churches" with "scientific community". It's absolutely a cultural issue. However, in response to your post to me, it's absolutely possible to democratically elect representatives who are willing to throw snowballs in the senate, so a representative democracy doesn't really "fix stupid" insofar that people keep electing "stupid".

I use stupid in the technical term of someone who unknowing to themselves cause objective harm to themselves as well as others.

The judicial system is a slow process with long lag times. It took decades from the time scientists and doctors recognized the connection between tobacco and lung cancer and when the fact was finally "settled in court". Many people died in the interim. Hence, my examples ... if someone jumps out the window at the 22nd floor and waits until he's falling to the second floor to sue for damage.

Seems to me that our current system (or democracy and courts) works well for muddling through problems that are local and immediate. Not the other problems,

[Dragline]

not true. pew research poll says only 44% of catholics and 48% believe in global warming . . .

That sounded kind of strange. Probably because that's not really what that pew study says. Here is the 2015 study (I would stop trusting the secondary media source of that info and go straight to the primary source itself): http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/16/cath ... l-warming/

It says that 71% of U.S. Catholics believe the earth is warming and 47% attribute it to human causes, which is slightly higher than the general population.

Then there is a more detailed study here from later in the year: http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/05/glo ... emissions/

"Faith and Climate Change

Pope Francis’ May 2015 encyclical on the environment and human ecology, “Laudato Si,” contends that “Climate change is a global problem with grave implications.”

Catholics, along with people who are unaffiliated with major religions, are more likely to agree with the pope’s position than are Protestants in the U.S. Among American Catholics, half believe climate change is a very serious problem and 39% are very concerned it will harm them personally. Only 34% of Protestants are very concerned about global warming, and just 26% express strong concerns that it will harm them in their lifetime."

Looking at the rest of that data globally, this tends to cleave statistically on political ideological lines, not religious ones. And people in countries closer to the equator are generally more concerned.