At the risk of derailing my own thread, what if I told you we have evidence that laughing away this exact mentality does not work (c.f. 2016 election)? How could it work?
The religious person might not realize why people are laughing at them, they would feel offended and marginalized. To laugh and ridicule their bona fide argument without actually addressing has a chance of backfiring and reinforcing religious fundamentalism. By pushing them out of mainstream public debate they have nowhere to express their ideas but in private, likely with the religious group they are affiliated with (if any). If the religious group as a whole finds itself laughed away by mainstream society, their internal discussions might be little more than an echo chamber; an echo chamber of fundamentalists breeds extremism, and suddenly we have a cult religion holed up in some remote pocket of the country practicing polygyny with minors.
What if the religious group adopts your tactic as well, and instead of addressing bona fide extreme positions, dismisses them out of hand? The same thing happens. The extremist feels offended and marginalized, except this time they have nowhere to continue discussions except possibly family and friends. If these last lines of defense fall, you might end up with suicides or worse, domestic terrorists.
None of this actually requires the person to attempt to present their arguments and meet laughter or silence. Just the mere expectation that they will not be taken seriously is enough.
That was laughing at a person, not at axioms. In any case, we sure as hell don’t do what I’m proposing today. Not in America, anyhow.
The same could apply to flat-earthers. And you might recollect that we already have cult religions holed up in remote sections of the country practicing polygamy with minors. Are the actions of governments in places where religion gets special treatment any more free than those where religion does not get special treatment. See Saudi Arabia for example.
I don’t think arguing people out of extreme positions has worked very well. Especially lately. Instead of people moving towards the center, the extreme position becomes the norm and there are those who just become more extreme.
If someone is upset by this, all they have to do is to present some decent evidence for their position, and we’d all stop laughing. Being taken seriously is not a right, it must be earned with a serious argument. Is that really too much to ask?
A lot of terrorist of all stripes do not come from an environment where they and a few others are alone, but from a big support system. Look at abortion clinic bombers. Look at Isis fans.
But why should Chopra’s arguments be limited out beforehand? One is always free to come back and say it does not have evidence to support it.
Does it not concern you that you are determining which arguments are disqualified prior to the discussion? Does rational debate require you have to submit your underpinnings of your position to a gatekeeper first? And it seems that you would not appreciate it if instead of you being the gatekeeper for the qualifying basis of reason in public policy debates would be someone more positively inclined toward religion. And what if people used other Christian Humanism buzz words for religious language? Would the gatekeeper have a buzzer?
It also appears the scientific research is indicating that we enter emotionally into our positions first and then add ad hoc rationality after the fact to justify our already decided positions. Therefore would a ‘bar of reason’ even matter?
What do you mean by an “unexaminable axiom”? Does this address your concern?
I would not personally support that, because I do not accept the premises.
That is assuming they already passed the laws.
A valid criticism of religious arguments that rely on the ultimate authority of the Bible, although this criticism cannot extend logically to all religious arguments.
I am sure you are aware that in Judaism, the bible is subject to rabbinical interpretation (it is argued that this has been the case since Moses) and is not always to be interpreted literally - Jewish fundamentalism has been dead since the destruction of the Second Temple and resulting extinction of the Sadducees. Hence the Talmud.
Similarily you will find that Catholics subject the Bible to the interpretation of the magisterium (the pope, bishops, and ecumenical councils). Hence the papal bulls and now papal briefs. The pope has the authority to speak as a formal authority on the interpretation of the bible, and such a formal proclimation is considered by Catholics to be divinely inspired and thus infallible. I think the only recent example of such a thing was Pius XII’s declaration of the Assumption (that Mary ascended to heaven).
I believe I addressed this just now in [POST=21691057]post #321[/POST], which I now realize I posted out of order.
And I am ok with that. My disagreement is with the notion that they should be banned outright in the realm of public policy debates. They can be laughed out there as well.
I don’t have any problem with allowing Chopra to espouse his ideas in a non-consequential debate.
I’m arguing for disqualifying a very specific, well worn set of arguments. Not simply any arguments I happen to disagree with. I’m fully confident that a religious person(s) can make a compelling secular argument that would align with their non-secular views. I would happily see those heard and debated.
I’m all for a good laugh. Legislative discussions could use the levity. But in the interest of saving time, do we really want to hear ad nauseum debates challenging religiously dogmatic positions. Which, btw, currently go unchallenged most of the time.
Religious axioms lack evidence
All axioms lack evidence by definition. If all axioms lack evidence, there is no difference in this regard between a religious axiom and a secular axiom. Therefore a lack of evidence for religious axioms is not a valid criteria with which to disqualify arguments based on religious axioms.
Religious axioms are rife with inconsistencies and contradictions
It would seem that debate is the best way to point out these inconsistencies and contradictions. Surely there exists some set of religious axioms which are consistent.
Religious axioms are damaging to humanity
You might as well say something damaging to humanity is wrong, therefore arguments based on religious axioms are wrong. Certainly it is not always the case that religious axioms are damaging to humanity, and ostensibly the religious people will disagree with you. So I am downgrading your argument to “QuickSilver thinks religious axioms are wrong”, and granting that.
It does not follow to disqualify arguments based on religious axioms, see [POST=21690987]post #320[/POST].
And I simply do not see the reason why those set of arguments should be disqualified from a public policy debate while other arguments based on other sorts of secular philosophical bases should not. For instance a Marxist may believe in those principles with the same fervor of any religious zealot.
Besides public policy debates are simply distillations of public debates. We aren’t dealing with philosopher kings of fable here, but elected officials. They are going to be making legislation on the basis of what is being talked about out in public. So why not take those the actual reasoning for those discussions out there in the public square rather than attempting to stifle the speech of those positions and come up with coded buzz words? Makes no sense whatsoever. How is encouraging dog whistles (for lack of a better term) better?
No, people should not be able to opt-out of following the law. The "should"s in post [POST=21690605]#316[/POST] were made in the character of someone presenting their argument for a law or public policy. The law has not been enacted yet, therefore it would be incorrect to say “everyone else has to”.
My argument could apply to flat-earthers, or Nazis for that matter. Not only did I recollect extant cult religions, it was implied that this “laugh them off” treatment encourages more of them. The actions of government are not necessarily more free in places where religion gets special treatment, but I don’t think I’m advocating for special treatment here.
Maybe so, but I tend to take the opposite viewpoint: the lack of debate has polarized politics. When you marginalize someone’s viewpoint, it’s not like that person disappears or magically realizes the error in their ways.
Well, yes, it is too much to ask. You can’t expect people to make what you consider to be serious arguments without explaining why you think their argument isn’t serious (addressing their argument). You as an individual are free to laugh off or disregard a bona fide argument you do not agree with, but if you do so, you can’t complain when they seek other ways to make a point. So I say it is not the right thing to do.
I’m not saying addressing political speech will prevent all terrorism, but I think it will reduce some.
If it please the court, allow me then to re-phrase:
Arguments that boil down to, “Because my God/Religious doctrine says so”, should be excluded from public policy debates when legislation is being made. Not because I disagree with the theists out of some personal animus, but because theism lacks evidence, is rife with inconsistencies, contradictions, and is damaging to humanity.
A Marxist cannot condemn your soul to Marxist hell for eternity.
By way of example:
I’ve no doubt that many theists believe that saving the environment is of primary importance to all humanity and generations to come. As an atheist, I would agree. However, I would discourage my fellow conservationists from making the argument that we should preserve the earth because of some belief system that says God has put us here on earth to be shepherd of the planet and all the plants and animals. A far better position would be to argue that destroying the environment would lead to wholesale destruction of many of its inhabitants, including us.
Why would I suggest such an approach when they are already on my side? Because it’s my firm belief that making a well informed and evidence based argument is better than making one that can easily be dismantled by opponents who would rightfully demand evidence for the deity whose will they are attempting to impose on those who don’t support their environmentalist views.
I see no compelling reason to entertain faulty arguments, even those that are ostensibly in agreement, as a way of showing…what?.. our tolerance of faulty reasoning. In service of what?
So? If you don’t consider that condemning to be based on rationality, why do you care? And what if the person making the claim is a universalist? Makes it ok?
Seems not to necessarily buttress your claim that this is not due to religious animus.
Why? Do you actually think such an argument actually convinces others on the other side? On the other hand, an argument based on Creation Care has seemingly to me resulted in some changing their positions on the issue (while conservative on others). Wouldn’t it be better to persuade the other side? I would submit people change their position when there is an emotional change. Not through rational argument (see this thread or forum). The LGBTQ rights battle was one based on personal connection with those who are gay. Not through reasoned debate (IMO).
In service of being open to the reasons why people hold the ways they do (as opposed to fictions) and dealing with those at the root.
I have a very dim view of rational debate actually changing anything. Especially as when it is often ad hoc justifications for what people have already come to believe.
I take issue with all institutions that frighten and lie to children.
Where there no LGBTQs in the religious community before the secular movement for acceptance came into its own? Where were these personal connections before the enlightened and informed appeals to reason instead of fear and condemnation? I think you’re short changing the influence of social/secular progress.
I believe in human emancipation from oppression of religious dogma. Seems to me, this is the general arc of human history.
I should continue, I guess, since your argument was that it was animus against religion not the religious - it appears that is far more emotional rather than rational at this point (the commonly asserted idea that communism has killed x amount of people for instance, and the counter claim that capitalism has killed more, not receiving the same bar comes to mind).
– thinks this is sufficient evidence that everyone else should not have to comply
– also thinks that a legislator in the USA should not be arguing that we should violate the First Amendment, at least unless they’re making a straighforward argument for repealing it first