this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
264 points (82.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43863 readers
1633 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And I guess this must be closing in on the root of our disagreement: I don’t see that religion requires uncritical belief.
I don’t know what your litmus test is for “standards of evidence.” Can you elaborate on what good standards of evidence looks like to you and how you know they are good?
Lastly, by agreeing that there is not universality in the backwards-ness and issue of religion, it seems to me you can’t argue for religious thought to have inherit nature to that kind. Rather, there are expressions of it, religiosity, being backwards and bad. The part does not account for the whole.
I don't think there is one single test that could encompass bad standards of evidence, but the whole "just have faith" thing is a dead giveaway. Hostility towards skepticism is another. Circular logic is also a pretty good indicator, like saying your holy text is the truth because your holy text says it's true. I guess the simplest and most effective test would be to see if the standard of evidence could be used to justify any claim.
And for good standards of evidence, I think it depends on the context and claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that. If you told me "I got a pet goldfish" the only evidence I really need is your word. But for claims about how the universe works and why it is the way it is, you might need much more sound reasoning, math that checks out when measurements or numbers are involved, a demonstration or test to serve as proof, etc..
The majority of people who smoke don't die from it but that doesn't mean cigarettes aren't problematic. I'm not saying all religions are bigoted or anything, but I am saying having any sort of doctrine opens the door to outdated beliefs overriding what we'd normally consider moral, and that by itself is problematic.
I'd also just like to say I think this has been the most civil conversation in the whole thread, so cheers to that lol
Yeah, these things all make sense, again, with the implied idea that “all religions” use fallacious logic like circular reasoning, which I think we both agree is a common feature but not a rule of religion.
And sure, there are plenty of things that I trust on faith, like my Creator and my Savior, or the concept of sin. For me, the faith is critical for my psyche, but I’m of the world and in the world, so I am called to work good in this world now, which grace and guidance.
I would be careful with the smoking analogy. The only control someone really has in their outcome from smoking is deciding heavily limit or to quit early enough to not have a high risk of health complications of death. Religious expression is the interface between the divine and the worldly. It’s socially controlled and always has been. There are so many things people of faith can do to prevent allowing their expressions and works from causing harm, alienate “others,” and ultimately do things incongruent with their proclaimed beliefs.
I think of it more like democracy: a social phenomenon many feel confident in being “the best,” but also one that can fall victim to abuses that prevent it’s ideal in such a way as to disenfranchise and deliver results many, if not most, are unhappy with, if not harmed from. But I don’t think either of us would call for a monarchy or autocracy in order to “prevent the ills of democracy.” We, collectively, have to be better at making democracy better.
And yeah! It has been fun to discuss with you. I appreciate hearing your perspectives on this and allowing me to better understand your line of reasoning.