Is it admirable to be intolerant of unsubstantiated assumptions?

[Cephus]

Absolutely, it is always positive to question everything. There is nothing that is off limits. If people are offended when it turns out their closely held beliefs are factually incorrect, so be it. That's up to them to deal with reality as reality is, not as they wish reality was. The whole "oh no, you're offending me" nonsense is terribly immature. If you're offended by facts, you've got issues.

 

[idav]

Just depends i guess. I might tolerate unsubstantiated stuff in a church but not at work. We try not to tolerate unsubstantiated opinion in the justice system.

 

[Cephus]

Just depends i guess. I might tolerate unsubstantiated stuff in a church but not at work. We try not to tolerate unsubstantiated opinion in the justice system.

But why would you tolerate it anywhere? Is it somehow more rational in a church than it is at work? If it's equally irrational, how can one be better than the other?

 

[Thief]

Remember, the OP says "intolerance of assumptions", not intolerance of the people who make them. Honestly, we all make assumptions, many of which we are unaware of. But, I find it honorable in a debate/discussion forum to point out whenever unsubstantiated assumptions are being made that I notice. It seems kind of like a duty to me in a forum such as this.

and as the discussion plays out....you can't separate the two.

attack the belief and you attack the person.

Your sense of 'intolerance' is ....intolerable.
an emotional knee jerk to faith.

Faith needs no proving.
insisting on 'proof' sets up an intolerable situation.

your 'duty' is it?....to be intolerable?

I see nothing honorable about pushing the word...unsubstantiated.

If you are here to learn about religion....then no need an insistence about proof.

 

[Thief]

I think you have a right to challenge any belief. If you don't feel they met the challenge, then you don't accept the belief. That is not intolerance; that is disagreement. 'Intolerance' can be justified if the belief is causing significant harm to others.

At the point of action dealt....I would agree.
Say all you care to about God.
Say so in any manner you care to.

but if you cut a man's head off....and claim it is God's will.....
THAT would be intolerable.

whatever we post here will bear scrutiny before God and heaven.
THAT is where intolerance of a an expression can be a problem.

"What if your words could be judged as a crime?"
from a song by...Creed

 

[Augustus]

That's up to them to deal with reality as reality is, not as they wish reality was.

Don't you think that your worldview (and thus reality) is based on unsubstantiated assumptions though?

I know mine certainly is.

 

[Cephus]

Don't you think that your worldview (and thus reality) is based on unsubstantiated assumptions though?

I know mine certainly is.

Not really. We don't know a lot of things for certainty, indeed, absolute certainty is an unrealistic standard for anything, but my views are defensible, based on the best knowledge that we actually currently have and I don't pretend that my positions are absolute, they are open to change as we learn more about the world around us. That's how rational people operate.

 

[Augustus]

Not really. We don't know a lot of things for certainty, indeed, absolute certainty is an unrealistic standard for anything, but my views are defensible, based on the best knowledge that we actually currently have and I don't pretend that my positions are absolute, they are open to change as we learn more about the world around us. That's how rational people operate.

How would you describe your moral system and overall worldview?

What is rational about it? It is just subjective preference is it not?

 

[Cephus]

How would you describe your moral system and overall worldview?

What is rational about it? It is just subjective preference is it not?

All morality is subjective. There is no basis for objective morality at all, it's all things that we come up with and find a way to justify. Society collectively decides which moral precepts it will enforce and this changes over time. Understanding and acknowledging reality is entirely rational.

 

[Augustus]

All morality is subjective. There is no basis for objective morality at all, it's all things that we come up with and find a way to justify. Society collectively decides which moral precepts it will enforce and this changes over time. Understanding and acknowledging reality is entirely rational.

Morality is subjective, which means your 'reality' is subjective. We interpret reality using subjective conceptual frameworks - what is 'rational' depends on our arbitrary start point.

If your start point is god, or if your start point is not god, is subjective preference. Just because you consider god to be a fiction and thus irrational doesn't make 'not god' any less of a fiction or any less irrational.

You can only be rational if you acknowledge your own irrationality, however this negates our rationality. Your worldview and rationality are no more tenable than that of a religious believer in that they rely on imaginary constructs such as morality, society or humanity.

You can prefer your worldview over others, but its hard to deny that it is simply your arbitrary preference rather than an objectively rational position.

 

[Cephus]

Morality is subjective, which means your 'reality' is subjective. We interpret reality using subjective conceptual frameworks - what is 'rational' depends on our arbitrary start point.

Reality and morality are two different things. Reality is that which continues to exist, regardless of what you believe about it. Morality is how humans interact with the world around them. While we do have a subjective interpretation of the world around us, we also have the ability to share our experiences and find common ground, which builds up a view of how reality works beyond our particular subjective interpretation.

If your start point is god, or if your start point is not god, is subjective preference. Just because you consider god to be a fiction and thus irrational doesn't make 'not god' any less of a fiction or any less irrational.

But there's no rational way to get from personal observations to a god. There just isn't. You cannot get from point A to point B without throwing in a lot of made up nonsense that is unjustifiable logically. As I've said before, if you want to posit that God is all-loving and all-powerful, how do you know that? Describe exactly how you came by that information for an entity that you can provide no evidence for whatsoever. It just can't be done.

You can only be rational if you acknowledge your own irrationality, however this negates our rationality. Your worldview and rationality are no more tenable than that of a religious believer in that they rely on imaginary constructs such as morality, society or humanity.

Rationality is a mechanism, it is a means to get to understanding through logical means. It's like science, you do science by exercising the scientific method. If you don't exercise the scientific method, you're not doing science. The fundamental purpose of rationality is asking yourself how you know what you know and examining everything, step by step, to see if you are operating in accordance to logical dictates. That means faith goes right out the window. If we have good reason to think a thing is true, there's no need for faith.

You can prefer your worldview over others, but its hard to deny that it is simply your arbitrary preference rather than an objectively rational position.

You still haven't pointed that out. I've pointed out a lot of holes in religious faith. I'm still waiting for you to point out any specific holes in rationality.

 

[JoStories]

Often in this forum I see many who make assumptions and, when questioned about their reasoning/evidence for doing so, they get defensive. Obviously, assumptions are a necessary part of human existence. But, when confronted with an assumption, I find it troubling when people refuse to either 1) provide a reasoned, substantiated argument for why they feel making the assumption is reasonable, and/or 2) complain that certain assumptions should not be questioned, usually when associated with religious beliefs/dogma.

My question is this ... is it admirable to be intolerant of assumptions like this, refusing to put-up with them by demanding a reasoned explanation based on facts rather than other unsubstantiated assumptions (for example, using passages from scripture to show that other passages in scripture are true)? Sometimes, when in these kinds of dialogues, I am simply trying to point out that an assumption is based on nothing more than subjective experience and faith. And, far too often, the individual is unwilling to admit this.

Is this form of intolerance something to be desired? Please provide a reasoned explanation for your response.

First, excellent questions. No, intolerance should never be desired because intolerance most often leads to bigotry, hatred, and ultimately, war. Or some other form of mass enforcement of ideals. Examples abound of this; The Inquisition, the Crusades, Missionaries who force people to believe, Jihadists and so on. If one believes in a particular thing and it is something that helps them in their daily lives, great. But the second that belief is used to force or browbeat others, it becomes intolerance.

 

[JoStories]

Remember, the OP says "intolerance of assumptions", not intolerance of the people who make them. Honestly, we all make assumptions, many of which we are unaware of. But, I find it honorable in a debate/discussion forum to point out whenever unsubstantiated assumptions are being made that I notice. It seems kind of like a duty to me in a forum such as this.

Maybe I misunderstood the OP myself. If you are asking if a person who holds an assumption and then assumes that another person with a differing assumption would then deny the first person's, I would still answer no. IE: A Christian assumes that Jesus was divine while a Muslim believes he was merely a prophet. And then they become intolerant of each other's beliefs. That can escalate to the point of violence so I would still say no.

 

[Augustus]

If we have good reason to think a thing is true, there's no need for faith...
You still haven't pointed that out. I've pointed out a lot of holes in religious faith. I'm still waiting for you to point out any specific holes in rationality.

Why does everyone assume that because someone makes a point about non-belief it automatically becomes an argument in favour of belief? I'm no more religious than you are; religion is a subjective fiction derived from human experience - just as your reality is.

The hole in rationality is that it is not rational in the truest sense. Faith is as integral to rationality as a worldview as it is to religion.

While an objective reality does exist, it is not the 'reality' that we experience.

You give meaning to 'reality' through language, and much of language is artificial. Language gives meaning to language - regressum ad infinitum - with only a limited foundation in objective reality.

You think that being rational is an admirable quality, I assume you value individual liberty also and consider yourself a moral person. All of this requires faith.

 

[JoStories]

Reality and morality are two different things. Reality is that which continues to exist, regardless of what you believe about it. Morality is how humans interact with the world around them. While we do have a subjective interpretation of the world around us, we also have the ability to share our experiences and find common ground, which builds up a view of how reality works beyond our particular subjective interpretation.

I believe that our reality and morality are integrative. IOW, what we conceive of as reality is also intimately joined with morality. While reality is what you say..that which continues to exist, that reality cannot be separate from morality. Reality without morals would be chaos. And really, is not reality subjective too? How we see things is based on our interpretation of that reality. Both of us can see a sky that is blue and disagree on what color that sky is. What even the concept of sky can differ. The only way we can even view reality is through our perceptive lens.

 

[JoStories]

You think that being rational is an admirable quality, I assume you value individual liberty also and consider yourself a moral person. All of this requires faith.

I think faith is the wrong word to use. IMO, it would be better to call it understanding from our own POV. Faith, at least for me, is intimately involved in religion. For example, I understand that the sky is above the earth. That is factually accurate. It doesn't require faith. Faith, IMO, involves topics which cannot be proven scientifically. Everyone understands that 1+1=2 and that doesn't require faith, unless one is thinking that mathematics are improvable. And they are, IMO.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I would say it is always a good thing to stand up against and question unsubstantiated rhetoric, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily "admirable". That's kind of like saying "It's admirable that a parent doesn't beat their children". Questioning things which have no basis in reality is something we should all be doing as a matter of course, rather than something that we should ASPIRE to or admire.

Also, it really depends what you mean by "intolerant". I would say I am "intolerant" of ubsubstantiated rhetoric and beliefs in that I try to never let anything get past me without people justifying and rationalizing it, and I feel I am free to question whatever beliefs I wish. However, I wouldn't say I'm intolerant in the sense that I still believe people have a right to believe as they wish regardless of how baseless I think they are.

 

[Augustus]

I think faith is the wrong word to use. IMO, it would be better to call it understanding from our own POV. Faith, at least for me, is intimately involved in religion. For example, I understand that the sky is above the earth. That is factually accurate. It doesn't require faith. Faith, IMO, involves topics which cannot be proven scientifically. Everyone understands that 1+1=2 and that doesn't require faith, unless one is thinking that mathematics are improvable. And they are, IMO.

Not a great deal of our reality is 'scientifically provable' though, at least not most of the things we find important such as morality, values, ethics, aesthetics, honour, etc.

We take it on faith that it worse to kill a human than a pig or a monkey - a faith that humans are something apart from other animals - a faith that ultimately comes from religion, as so many concepts present in secular thought do.

 

[Cephus]

I believe that our reality and morality are integrative. IOW, what we conceive of as reality is also intimately joined with morality. While reality is what you say..that which continues to exist, that reality cannot be separate from morality. Reality without morals would be chaos. And really, is not reality subjective too? How we see things is based on our interpretation of that reality. Both of us can see a sky that is blue and disagree on what color that sky is. What even the concept of sky can differ. The only way we can even view reality is through our perceptive lens.

No, reality is not subjective. Our individual perception of reality is subjective. There is an objective reality out there beyond our perception that exists regardless of what we think about it. A lot of people pretend that we are integral to the existence of reality, that somehow, reality goes away if we stop existing, but reality was there for billions of years before mankind evolved, it will be there for billions of years after we go extinct. We mean nothing to reality and our emotional comfort means nothing as well. That's really all morality is, a way for us not to feel bad about things that happen between individuals and societies. Whatever we do on this tiny little planet in the middle of nowhere, it has no bearing whatsoever on reality. If we blew the planet up tomorrow, nobody would know or care, we'd be a distant footnote in the annals of the universe. We just don't matter to anyone but ourselves.

But we can look at the sky and determine what color it really is. We can measure the wavelengths objectively. Anyone who claims that the sky is not that color is factually incorrect. Perceptions may differ but that doesn't mean that all perceptions are true.

 

[Thief]

No, reality is not subjective. Our individual perception of reality is subjective. There is an objective reality out there beyond our perception that exists regardless of what we think about it. A lot of people pretend that we are integral to the existence of reality, that somehow, reality goes away if we stop existing, but reality was there for billions of years before mankind evolved, it will be there for billions of years after we go extinct. We mean nothing to reality and our emotional comfort means nothing as well. That's really all morality is, a way for us not to feel bad about things that happen between individuals and societies. Whatever we do on this tiny little planet in the middle of nowhere, it has no bearing whatsoever on reality. If we blew the planet up tomorrow, nobody would know or care, we'd be a distant footnote in the annals of the universe. We just don't matter to anyone but ourselves.

But we can look at the sky and determine what color it really is. We can measure the wavelengths objectively. Anyone who claims that the sky is not that color is factually incorrect. Perceptions may differ but that doesn't mean that all perceptions are true.

you are then certain of your perceptions?

and you do not perceive a God?

and you matter to nothing Greater than yourself?

Your humility is great but is based on something less.
If you draw from Something Greater......