Non-Belief and the Inner Self

[Storm]

That is, while moderate believers claim to disapprove of violent behavior, they still support the concept that religious faith is not subject to secular morality.

Please do not make such sweeping generalizations. I support no such notion.

 

[Escéptico]

How unforgivable, to make generalizations and use stereotypes.

Is it a gross generalization to say that the New York Yankees are a baseball team? Why not? Most of the people in the organization don't play baseball. The vast majority of the personnel are administrative staff or maintenance workers. How could anyone make such a bizarre generalization?

And avoid sterotypes at all costs. Calling something a 'chair,' for instance. Is it a bar chair, an easy chair, a beanbag chair, or some other sort of chair? The word chair is just a nasty stereotype that tells us nothing about the object.

 

[Storm]

So much for your newfound civility.

 

[sandandfoam]

How unforgivable, to make generalizations and use stereotypes.

Is it a gross generalization to say that the New York Yankees are a baseball team? Why not? Most of the people in the organization don't play baseball. The vast majority of the personnel are administrative staff or maintenance workers. How could anyone make such a bizarre generalization?

And avoid sterotypes at all costs. Calling something a 'chair,' for instance. Is it a bar chair, an easy chair, a beanbag chair, or some other sort of chair? The word chair is just a nasty stereotype that tells us nothing about the object.

Ok, if you need to blow off steam I won't stand in your way, the floor is yours.
Rant away.

 

[Storm]

Tell me, Esceptico, why are you here? Do you have any interest in a mutual exchange of ideas?

 

[Escéptico]

Hey, I didn't intend to insult anyone. All I wanted to do is demonstrate that sometimes there's a very valid basis for making a generalization.

I don't expect anyone to accept my analysis wholeheartedly, but I think it deserves a little more response than just a casual dismissal. The dynamic of religion in society is a complicated subject, but it's a lot more viable than you folks give it credit for. It seems that if someone doesn't take the position that religious belief is a beautiful, transcendent experience that should never be criticized, he gets painted as a bigot.

 

[Storm]

Hey, I didn't intend to insult anyone.

Then you need to think about what you're saying.

All I wanted to do is demonstrate that sometimes there's a very valid basis for making a generalization.

And most of the time, there isn't. Your generalization was no more justified than the oft-repeated "Atheists just want to sin."

I don't expect anyone to accept my analysis wholeheartedly, but I think it deserves a little more response than just a casual dismissal.

I did not dismiss your analysis. I asked you not to attribute to me views I do not hold.

It seems that if someone doesn't take the position that religious belief is a beautiful, transcendent experience that should never be criticized, he gets painted as a bigot.

Uh, no. It's very simple: if you talk like a bigot, you'll be treated as such.

 

[Escéptico]

Your generalization was no more justified than the oft-repeated "Atheists just want to sin."

All I pointed out was that religious believers profess to hold 'divine truth' above secular values. Didn't you hear? The Lord hath made folly of the wisdom of this world.

I did not dismiss your analysis. I asked you not to attribute to me views I do not hold.

I never attributed anything whatsoever to you, Storm. I wasn't even talking to you or addressing anything you said. Yet you handwaved away all the points I made merely by claiming that I generalized about your beliefs. Is it my fault that you took my words so personally?

It's very simple: if you talk like a bigot, you'll be treated as such.

It's even simpler. If Storm disagrees with you, you get called a bigot.

 

[Storm]

All I pointed out was that religious believers profess to hold 'divine truth' above secular values. Didn't you hear? The Lord hath made folly of the wisdom of this world.

And all I pointed out was that your statement was inaccurate.

I never attributed anything whatsoever to you, Storm. I wasn't even talking to you or addressing anything you said. Yet you handwaved away all the points I made merely by claiming that I generalized about your beliefs. Is it my fault that you took my words so personally?

Yes, you did. If you haven't noticed, "believers" includes me. It also includes others like me. You made a grossly inaccurate generalization and got called on it. Is it my fault you can't admit when you're wrong?

It's even simpler. If Storm disagrees with you, you get called a bigot.

I disagree with plenty of people who aren't bigots. And for the record, I didn't call you one. You brought it up.

 

[Magic Man]

OK, I know this might come as a huge shock here, but I have to agree with Esceptico to a degree. I know where he's coming from. I don't think he meant to say that all of a certain group act a certain way, just that a lot of them do, based on his experience. It seemed to me that in this case, he was just making a generalization, which, in and of itself, isn't bad. I think it's only bad when the person doesn't understand that the generalization doesn't apply to everyone. You can say some things about "most Christians", and then some things you can't say.

I know the feeling because I equate it with political correctness. I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone, but I think sometimes we get too into the not making generalizations that we go the opposite route, which is just as unproductive.

The bottom line is that you can make generalizations, just as long as you realize that they don't apply to every case.

That's how I see it, at least. MAybe I misinterpretted something, though.

 

[Willamena]

It's relevant if there is a reason that religion coerces people into professing and behaving certain ways. That is, the defense is usually that "not every believer" does things we dislike, and thus religion is not to blame for the behavior. But if the dynamic of religion benefits from the actions of even a minority of believers, we need to question whether this minority is merely an aberration.

From the meme's-eye view, religion benefits by having believers profess religious belief, defend the relevance of faith in society, and behave in certain ways that don't need to directly benefit the individual believer. Thus, believers avoid proscribed food, pray several times a day, engage in primitive rituals like circumcision, and enact other free-floating rationales that perpetuate religion in our society. These are analogous to the extravagant displays in the animal world, like bowerbirds constructing unwieldy structures to impress mates: religious behavior attracts potential converts and intimidates the competition. But the inflationary spiral of these displays can get out of hand, causing believers to do reprehensible things in the cause of demonstrating their devotion to their beliefs. Thus, we get our suicide bombers and fundamentalist ideologues.

The ingenuity of this dynamic is that religion doesn't have to coerce reprehensible behavior from every believer to be effective. It cultivates a group of enforcers, who operate with the tacit approval of the religious community. That is, while moderate believers claim to disapprove of violent behavior, they still support the concept that religious faith is not subject to secular morality. This reinforces the basis of the religious behavior, regardless of whether it explicitly condemns the behavior itself.

Surely religion is not unique in being subject to this dynamic?

Edit: I work in government, and even here in administration I experience much of the same sort of coerced behaviour in party politics. "Beliefs" inform every aspect of our lives.

 

[Escéptico]

Surely religion is not unique in being subject to this dynamic?

I never claimed it was. Political ideas like democracy create free-floating rationales that may not always benefit the individual in the long run, and yet we continue to profess that democracy is a good thing. Even a system of laws is a self-perpetuating construct that (it can be said) develops adaptations to ensure its survival: people profess that it's a good thing to obey the law, even if they don't necessarily agree with every ordinance.

 

[Magic Man]

I just wanted to make sure I got credit for agreeing with you for once, Esceptico. After all of the times we've disagreed, I want to make sure you know that I don't disagree with you out of habit. There are times that I actually do agree with you.

 

[Willamena]

I never claimed it was. Political ideas like democracy create free-floating rationales that may not always benefit the individual in the long run, and yet we continue to profess that democracy is a good thing. Even a system of laws is a self-perpetuating construct that (it can be said) develops adaptations to ensure its survival: people profess that it's a good thing to obey the law, even if they don't necessarily agree with every ordinance.

Just so. Systems take on a life if their own. Some suggest that self-aware being is such a construct.

 

[Escéptico]

I just wanted to make sure I got credit for agreeing with you for once, Esceptico. After all of the times we've disagreed, I want to make sure you know that I don't disagree with you out of habit. There are times that I actually do agree with you.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

It would be nice if the author of the OP would investigate the teachings of mystical traditions.

 

[Storm]

OK, I know this might come as a huge shock here, but I have to agree with Esceptico to a degree. I know where he's coming from. I don't think he meant to say that all of a certain group act a certain way, just that a lot of them do, based on his experience. It seemed to me that in this case, he was just making a generalization, which, in and of itself, isn't bad. I think it's only bad when the person doesn't understand that the generalization doesn't apply to everyone. You can say some things about "most Christians", and then some things you can't say.

I know the feeling because I equate it with political correctness. I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone, but I think sometimes we get too into the not making generalizations that we go the opposite route, which is just as unproductive.

The bottom line is that you can make generalizations, just as long as you realize that they don't apply to every case.

That's how I see it, at least. MAybe I misinterpretted something, though.

And if someone points out that a generalization is inaccurate, is Esceptico's a reasonable response? Is such a response conducive to a productive dialogue?

Becasue, honestly, I didn't have that much of a problem with the generalization. It was his condescending reply that ****** me off.

 

[Random]

I'm not up to re-reading the whole thread so far. Is this about Self-belief? *Yawn*

 

[fantome profane]

I would say over 90 percent of religious people fit in the "stereotypical" category.

Of the 10 percent of religious people that do not fit into the "stereotypical" category you infer exists, I would guess that they would say that over 90 percent of non-religious people fit into the stereotypical archetype of being anti-religion.

63% of experts agree that 38% of all statistics are just made up on the spot.

 

[Magic Man]

And if someone points out that a generalization is inaccurate, is Esceptico's a reasonable response? Is such a response conducive to a productive dialogue?

Becasue, honestly, I didn't have that much of a problem with the generalization. It was his condescending reply that ****** me off.

Honestly, I don't think his response was completely unreasonable. You did make it seem that you had a big problem with the generalization to begin with. I don't think that showing one case where the generalization doesn't apply is showing it to be inaccurate, just that it is only a generalization, and not a universal rule.

I think he probably felt like you were attacking him for no good reason. I'm not saying you were, but it's possible to take it that way.

I'm just saying that we tend to see generalizations as inherently bad a lot of times without stopping to consider that they could be true.

Let me ask you this: Would you honestly have had the same response, had I posted the original post that started this? Would you have done anything differently?