Re: Second Annual Evolution Sunday -- 11 February 2007

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:55:31 GMT,
Mark Isaak <eciton_NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:52:28 +0000, Larry Moran wrote:

[snip]

The way you pose your question almost presupposes the answer. You
probably think that the answer is no, we should not fight against
ignorance if being ignorant makes people happy.

Actually, no. I was not commenting on ignorance in particular, but on
the broader issue of there being values higher than happiness. Maybe
there are some, but it looks like dangerous territory to go there.
Life can get miserable if happiness is undervalued.

A more important consideration, I think, is unintended consequences.
Ignorance that makes people happy is still not good because it has
consequences of causing misery further down the line.

I'm too confused to follow this train of thought. What do you mean by
"ignorance"? Do you mean a false belief in God? Are you saying that
we should dispel false beliefs (ignorance) because those false
beliefs will have consequences down the line?

[snip]

That's not so clear to me. I tend to think that knowledge is always
better than ignorance. You are imagining a situation where a false
belief is very comforting and dispelling that belief might make people
very unhappy.

No, I am thinking of a belief that is religious but not false. You still
seem to have the false belief that such religious belief is not possible.

[Note to others, we are assuming for the sake of argument that religion
is false.

You are assuming that. I have stated repeatedly that, although much
religion is false, not all is.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I was addressing this question ...

"Even more appropriately, you could argue that living in
ignorance makes some people happier. Should we therefore
encourage ignorance?"

"I am unconvinced by your unconviction. If a practise does
no harm, and discouraging it makes people miserable, should
we discourage it?"

This question makes the assumption that people believe in something
that is wrong. I thought you were saying that we should let them be even
if we know they're wrong. I thought you were saying that we should
leave them along because they are happy.

Now you've switched back to the argument that religion isn't false in
the first place. That's a different point entirely. I can't keep up.

[snip]

You seem to assume that religion always causes harm. Yet that is not
true. For one thing, social support makes people live years longer,
and churches are the main social support system in most people's lives.

I think PZ knows this. He knows that Young Earth Creationists often
belong to churches with strong support groups. I don't think you're
going to get very far if you want us to lay off Young Earth Creationists
for fear of upsetting them.

You do know, don't you, that there are churches which contain no Young
Earth Creationists? In fact, let me simplify things. Everywhere in
this thread, unless I specifically say otherwise, nothing I have said or
will say applies to creationists of any stripe. I am talking about a
religious position even further from creationism than atheism is.

I'm addressing the *form* of your original argument. You seem to be saying
that religion provides strong social support and we should be wary of
disrupting that support even if we know it is propped up by false belief.

I was making a reductio ad absurdum argument when I brought up the
Young Earth Creationists. I was asking if the form of your argument applies
to them as well. I assume you will say no. The next question is how do
we decide which false beliefs to leave in place because they produce a
strong social support group? (Please don't switch back to saying that
some religion is not false. That's a different argument entirely.)

I will now make the assumption that you are defending some rather ill-
defined version of religion that you believe to be true. I don't know
what this religion is, is it some form of deism?

With all due respect, you seem to be wanting to have your cake and
eat it too. You are happy to attack all the "bad" religions (see Panda's
Thumb). You are happy to attack atheists for threatening the "good"
religion. But you are unwilling to describe this "good" religion so
we can see what you're talking about.

Don't you think that's a bit unfair? You leave me no choice but to
try and guess what you're defending and every time I guess wrong you
criticize my posting. Instead of beating around the bush why not just
come out and tell us about the "good" religion that is not false?

[snip]

In Canada, I live in a very secular society. There's nothing
particularly radical about being an atheist. Atheists can run for
political office and even get elected. There's no reason why I should
keep my views to myself, is there?]

No, as long as you don't mind publicizing factually wrong views.

Please back up your claim. Tell me what is factually wrong. The best
way to do this is to explain your factually correct version of religion.
Can you do that?




Larry Moran


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dances With Dead
    ... Except they are wallowing in Bronze and Iron Age ignorance. ... But they are very cafeteria. ... You can't follow the religion ... Bush and Cheney also indulge in detentions without ...
    (rec.equestrian)
  • Re: OT- Take My Son
    ... the very same 'religion' that those that defiled those boys were." ... It came when you claimed there were no atheist cult ... You now admit it was your ignorance that led you to make the false statement? ... Once I learn someone is a blatant liar, I question all the bullshit they peddled previously. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Second Annual Evolution Sunday -- 11 February 2007
    ... Should we therefore encourage ignorance? ... whether religion is actually false or not in this case. ... Religious bigotry does. ... fight religion, I would have no hope of getting anywhere. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_The_Dark_Side_of_Bah=E1=ED?=
    ... a 'cause' which supposedly has the oneness of humanity as it's ... A person must ask themselves how a religion which supposedly has the ... abolished the practice of shunning, he himself as well as Abbas ... Not only ignorance on the part of the UHJ today, ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)
  • Re: Saturn V
    ... Your ignorance is demonstrated by the following reckless statement ... in Shuttle flights if we were rational about it." ...
    (sci.space.history)