First off, can we please not let this thread diverge or digress on to the topic of whether or not a deity exists.
I was watching an interview with my mom last night in which Stephen Fry answered questions, many of which were on religion and belief. He said things such as (paraphrased/summarised) "it's much more ridiculous to believe in a single creator than it is to believe in many" and "I think the Greeks got it right; if there are deities then they are pernicious, capricious, vindictive, malevolent, inconsistent, jealous... (etc)".
One of my mom's responses to this was that he is arrogant for saying such things. She said there is no need for him to talk in that way, and that she doesn't want to hear any arguments for or against atheism, or theism, or any other form of belief, or lack thereof. In essence, she was saying that he was not only arrogant because of the words he used, but also for the fact that he was preaching his beliefs as if he has any need to, and as if he has any authority on the matter.
My response to this topic is that I feel that it is incredibly important to proselytise your beliefs. As Penn Jillette put it (again, paraphrased): "If you honestly believe that, as an atheist, I am damned to eternal torture in hell, then I respect you much more for trying to save me". She responded to this by saying the Bible doesn't teach that atheists go to hell, or even that hell exists at all, but that's a straw-man so I won't mention it further. I believe the same is true of atheism. If you truly believe that people are being deluded and propping up a mass scam that has been the catalyst and cause of countless crimes to humanity, then I feel you have not only a right to proselytise, but you also MUST do so. I respect people that preach their beliefs much more than those who don't. Even if you don't think that atheists go to hell, or even if you don't think that religion is delusional or harmful, I believe it's perfectly acceptable to want to show people the truth as you see it. If they don't want to listen, then fine, but going on a show and giving your opinions (as Stephen Fry did) is acceptable at the very least, if not commendable and admirable for having the strength of his convictions to try and shine some truth on those he feels are wrong. What's so arrogant about that? Just to make it clear: I also respect fundamentalists in the same way. I think they're completely wrong, but I respect them much more than those "moderates" who simply say that everyone's entitled to their own opinion and every opinion is as equal as the next.
As I was writing this my mom came in my room and said "See? This is why so many religious wars are started: because people think their opinions are worth more than others'". I had to bite my tongue and restrain myself from saying "the reasons so many religious wars are started is because their religious texts push them towards it". But that's a different topic.
What are your views on the supposed "arrogance" of preaching and proselytising your beliefs. Is it unnecessary and sanctimonious? Or is it, as I believe, a respectable thing to do if you truly believe that you are right?
Is being militant in your theistic/atheistic beliefs important?
Started by: Automaton | Replies: 30 | Views: 1,376
Sep 14, 2013 6:25 PM #1083465
Sep 14, 2013 6:49 PM #1083479
First off, the Bible says directly that a hell exists and that some angels, now known as demons, were sent there after trying to take over heaven and God's throne. Tell your mother about that.
About, this whole thing: The problem is that people do horrifying things and claim that it is for God, thinking that makes it right. Say, in your post you say that if an atheist is against religion because, "it has been the catalyst and cause of countless crimes to humanity". Well, there is a problem. People like Christopher Columbus and Al Qaeda claim that they do what they do in the name of God, the same God that tells you to not kill and to love everyone like your brother i.e. be cool with people, and don't be a penis. Claiming that whatever wrong you are doing is in the name of God does not make it right, in fact it hurts the Good Name of God and makes it look like He would support these terrible actions. Another thing, some atheists say that God loves everyone and that He must love rapists and murderers as well. There is another issue, if you're going to bash the Bible then, you should know a bit more about the subject. It says that God loves everyone, yes, but, that doesn't mean that He loves what you do or whatever acts of rape or murder someone may commit. It says that God loves everyone as a child and wants them to stop doing wrong, much like a parent would love their kid but, wants them to stop being an idiot or not have sex at 12 or do drugs.
As I said above, people claim that their wars are justified by their God but, in fact, their God explicitly tells them to NOT act that way and not hurt people, etc. For example, The Crusades were supposed to be a mission to "regain Holy Sites", right? Well, they hadn't done so in the thousands of years they had before, they only did that after finding the great opportunities of trade in the Middle East. See? People might claim that they do things that are the Will of God but, it is the direct opposite! Prime current example, as I already said, is radical muslim terrorists. The Islam faith is against violence and being an anus to people in general but, again they want to justify themselves with God, which is completely and utterly wrong. It's not religion that causes it, it's idiots that want power and wish to justify themselves.
By the way, thanks for posting this. Please people, don't turn into another one of those 'Is religion z reel?' arguments.
About, this whole thing: The problem is that people do horrifying things and claim that it is for God, thinking that makes it right. Say, in your post you say that if an atheist is against religion because, "it has been the catalyst and cause of countless crimes to humanity". Well, there is a problem. People like Christopher Columbus and Al Qaeda claim that they do what they do in the name of God, the same God that tells you to not kill and to love everyone like your brother i.e. be cool with people, and don't be a penis. Claiming that whatever wrong you are doing is in the name of God does not make it right, in fact it hurts the Good Name of God and makes it look like He would support these terrible actions. Another thing, some atheists say that God loves everyone and that He must love rapists and murderers as well. There is another issue, if you're going to bash the Bible then, you should know a bit more about the subject. It says that God loves everyone, yes, but, that doesn't mean that He loves what you do or whatever acts of rape or murder someone may commit. It says that God loves everyone as a child and wants them to stop doing wrong, much like a parent would love their kid but, wants them to stop being an idiot or not have sex at 12 or do drugs.
Quote from Automatonthe reasons so many religious wars are started is because their religious texts push them towards it
As I said above, people claim that their wars are justified by their God but, in fact, their God explicitly tells them to NOT act that way and not hurt people, etc. For example, The Crusades were supposed to be a mission to "regain Holy Sites", right? Well, they hadn't done so in the thousands of years they had before, they only did that after finding the great opportunities of trade in the Middle East. See? People might claim that they do things that are the Will of God but, it is the direct opposite! Prime current example, as I already said, is radical muslim terrorists. The Islam faith is against violence and being an anus to people in general but, again they want to justify themselves with God, which is completely and utterly wrong. It's not religion that causes it, it's idiots that want power and wish to justify themselves.
By the way, thanks for posting this. Please people, don't turn into another one of those 'Is religion z reel?' arguments.
Sep 14, 2013 7:10 PM #1083494
I agree with you. Preaching your beliefs is actually something religion supports you doing, and getting someone to change his belief into yours is something very highly praised (at least that's what I know in my religion).
However not anyone is qualified to preach anything, it's exactly this that causes most troubles and misconceptions about religion: People preaching what they personally believe and claiming it as being part of religion's concepts, and they do that either due to simple misguidance or to oppress their views onto others who are ignorant of the truth.
However not anyone is qualified to preach anything, it's exactly this that causes most troubles and misconceptions about religion: People preaching what they personally believe and claiming it as being part of religion's concepts, and they do that either due to simple misguidance or to oppress their views onto others who are ignorant of the truth.
Sep 14, 2013 9:51 PM #1083556
Quote from '[NaimadMatrixNinja2000;1083479']First off, the Bible says directly that a hell exists and that some angels, now known as demons, were sent there after trying to take over heaven and God's throne. Tell your mother about that.
About, this whole thing: The problem is that people do horrifying things and claim that it is for God, thinking that makes it right. Say, in your post you say that if an atheist is against religion because, "it has been the catalyst and cause of countless crimes to humanity". Well, there is a problem. People like Christopher Columbus and Al Qaeda claim that they so what they do in the name of God, the same God that tells you to not kill and to love everyone like your brother i.e. be cool with people, and don't be a penis. Claiming that whatever wrong you are doing is in the name of God does not make it right, in fact it hurts the Good Name of God and makes it look like He would support these terrible actions. Another thing, some atheists say that God loves everyone and that He must love rapists and murderers as well. There is another issue, if you're going to bash the Bible then, you know a bit more about the subject. It says that God loves everyone, yes, but, that doesn't mean that He loves what you do or whatever acts of rape or murder someone may commit. It says that God loves everyone as a child and wants them to stop doing wrong, much like a parent would love their kid but, wants them to stop being an idiot or not have sex at 12 or do drugs.
This isn't answering the question, really. The question is, regardless of the truth of your beliefs, is proselytising your beliefs or lack of beliefs justified? Or is it arrogant to do so? The only relevant part of this post is if you say that atheists shouldn't feel the need to preach against religion because their claims as to religion causing conflict are unfounded. I would disagree, but this is also largely irrelevant. Regardless of whether or not religion and theism itself causes conflict, is an atheist right in preaching so because that's what he believes? Regardless of whether it's true or not, I feel an atheist should "preach" against religion if he believes it to be a negative influence. In the same way, regardless of whether it's true or not, I feel a theist should preach against atheism if he believes it's a belief that damns your soul to hell.
As I said above, people claim that their wars are justified by their God but, in fact, their God explicitly tells them to NOT act that way and not hurt people, etc. For example, The Crusades were supposed to be a mission to "regain Holy Sites", right? Well, they hadn't done in the thousands of years they had before, they only did that after finding the great opportunities of trade in the Middle East. See? People might claim that they do things that are the Will of God but, it is the direct opposite! Prime current example, as I already said, is radical muslim terrorists. The Islam faith is against violence and being an anus to people in general but, again they want to justify themselves with God, which is completely and utterly wrong. It's not religion that causes it, it's idiots that wants power and wish to justify themselves.
I don't really want to get into a debate about whether or not religion is good, or whether holy texts cause wars. I will respond to this if it's required, but for now I'd just like the debate to be on whether or not proselytising religion or atheism is arrogant and unnecessary, regardless of its validity.
Here're Penn Jillette's words, considering I've referenced his views as being similar to my own (NOTE: THE PART I'M ON ABOUT IS 4:00->END. THE BIT BEFORE 4:00 IS IRRELEVANT):
Sep 14, 2013 9:57 PM #1083557
Oh, well, I thought that if someone was going to 'preach' something they should know what they're talking about. You said, regardless of validity, however, so, I'll shut my trap.
Telling people about your beliefs isn't arrogant. However, shoving them down someone's throat forcibly is 1) rude and somewhat arrogant and 2) not going to work. What IS arrogant is when atheists go into the whole thing about theists being crazy. THAT IS incredibly arrogant. Preaching is fine, though, it isn't really intrusive or anything.
Also, you made me realise how much I failed at grammar in that post.
Telling people about your beliefs isn't arrogant. However, shoving them down someone's throat forcibly is 1) rude and somewhat arrogant and 2) not going to work. What IS arrogant is when atheists go into the whole thing about theists being crazy. THAT IS incredibly arrogant. Preaching is fine, though, it isn't really intrusive or anything.
Also, you made me realise how much I failed at grammar in that post.
Sep 14, 2013 10:23 PM #1083569
I didn't notice any incorrect grammar when I read it :') If there were some I must have sub-consciously ignored it or something.
Personally I don't mind the whole ridicule sort of thing that atheists do. I try not to do it, myself, but I can see where it comes from. Richard Dawkins said that ridicule is a necessary and powerful tool in combating religion, and I tend to agree. You have to understand, (a lot of) atheists believe that a belief in God is the same as a belief in unicorns, and showing the absurdity of that is vital. In the same way, if a religious person believes that an atheist is immoral or stupid, they have every right to either ridicule the atheist, or to call them immoral. Besides what my mom said, the main reason for making this thread was because I'm tired of people acting as if people that argue for their beliefs are somehow arrogant. If you tell me that you don't want to discuss religion then fine, but don't call me arrogant just because I present my beliefs strongly, with conviction and as if they're fact. That's part of a society that places importance on the dialectic discussion. In my philosophy class I was the only person, along with one other, who defended David Hume's arguments (against god/religion/miracles). Others agreed with his reasoning, but didn't like "how aggressive he was, and how he has to criticise everything". I'm sorry, but if you believe that others are deluded, and that delusion has been the cause of conflict throughout the history of humanity, then you should damn well feel the need to tell people about it, and try to get them to see it from your point of view. If someone says "we should double the amount that our armed servicemen get from our taxes", and you completely disagree with that, why should you feel that you have to say "well everyone's entitled to their own opinion" or something similar? You should argue your point, unless the other person says they don't want to talk about it. It should be exactly the same way with religion.
Personally I don't mind the whole ridicule sort of thing that atheists do. I try not to do it, myself, but I can see where it comes from. Richard Dawkins said that ridicule is a necessary and powerful tool in combating religion, and I tend to agree. You have to understand, (a lot of) atheists believe that a belief in God is the same as a belief in unicorns, and showing the absurdity of that is vital. In the same way, if a religious person believes that an atheist is immoral or stupid, they have every right to either ridicule the atheist, or to call them immoral. Besides what my mom said, the main reason for making this thread was because I'm tired of people acting as if people that argue for their beliefs are somehow arrogant. If you tell me that you don't want to discuss religion then fine, but don't call me arrogant just because I present my beliefs strongly, with conviction and as if they're fact. That's part of a society that places importance on the dialectic discussion. In my philosophy class I was the only person, along with one other, who defended David Hume's arguments (against god/religion/miracles). Others agreed with his reasoning, but didn't like "how aggressive he was, and how he has to criticise everything". I'm sorry, but if you believe that others are deluded, and that delusion has been the cause of conflict throughout the history of humanity, then you should damn well feel the need to tell people about it, and try to get them to see it from your point of view. If someone says "we should double the amount that our armed servicemen get from our taxes", and you completely disagree with that, why should you feel that you have to say "well everyone's entitled to their own opinion" or something similar? You should argue your point, unless the other person says they don't want to talk about it. It should be exactly the same way with religion.
Sep 14, 2013 10:54 PM #1083577
Ah, I see. Problem is I haven't been around people that are either
A. Smart enough to discuss their beliefs or
B. Stupid enough to call it arrogant.
It's usually one extreme or the other. Can you give some examples of people doing this, please?
A. Smart enough to discuss their beliefs or
B. Stupid enough to call it arrogant.
It's usually one extreme or the other. Can you give some examples of people doing this, please?
Sep 15, 2013 3:07 AM #1083685
There is no need for an atheist to spit fire when they're tearing someone's beliefs apart. Yes, you need to make them see that they're being stupid, but the way to do that is not with ridicule. As a rule, the harder you push someone the harder they push back. If you can guide them gently to the right answer then it works, if not then they probably wouldn't have listened to you anyway.
It's different for Christians [substitute religion of your choice here]. If you really genuinely believe that a person will burn in hell for eternity then you should spend literally every second of your existence trying to save them. You should forgo food and water because it is time spent not arguing with people. Take a moment to really consider the implications of an eternity of torture. It is beyond human comprehension. If you believe in hell, and you believe that people will go to hell if they don't follow your religion, then you are literally evil if you do not devote your life to converting people. If you do not do everything within your power to prevent people from sinning then you are in league with the devil.
This is one of my reasons for adopting theological non-cognitivism (ie. you can't think of God so anything you say on the topic is meaningless). If people really understood what they claim to believe then they would not act the way they do.
It's different for Christians [substitute religion of your choice here]. If you really genuinely believe that a person will burn in hell for eternity then you should spend literally every second of your existence trying to save them. You should forgo food and water because it is time spent not arguing with people. Take a moment to really consider the implications of an eternity of torture. It is beyond human comprehension. If you believe in hell, and you believe that people will go to hell if they don't follow your religion, then you are literally evil if you do not devote your life to converting people. If you do not do everything within your power to prevent people from sinning then you are in league with the devil.
This is one of my reasons for adopting theological non-cognitivism (ie. you can't think of God so anything you say on the topic is meaningless). If people really understood what they claim to believe then they would not act the way they do.
Sep 15, 2013 3:51 AM #1083710
Quote from Zed
It's different for Christians [substitute religion of your choice here]. If you really genuinely believe that a person will burn in hell for eternity then you should spend literally every second of your existence trying to save them. You should forgo food and water because it is time spent not arguing with people. Take a moment to really consider the implications of an eternity of torture. It is beyond human comprehension. If you believe in hell, and you believe that people will go to hell if they don't follow your religion, then you are literally evil if you do not devote your life to converting people. If you do not do everything within your power to prevent people from sinning then you are in league with the devil.
What? Where did you get this from? Seriously, where are you getting this from? People have lives, where does it say you must stop eating to evangelize?
Sep 15, 2013 4:07 AM #1083718
Quote from '[NaimadMatrixNinja2000;1083710']What? Where did you get this from? Seriously, where are you getting this from? People have lives, where does it say you must stop eating to evangelize?
Obviously if they really believe in an eternity in hell then their lives are better spent helping those doomed to this fate. Especially if they will have eternal life when they die and go to heaven. In fact if you don't spend your life trying to help your fellow man then how can you possible claim to hold true to your dogma. Go to hell Naimad, you and all the atheists can go to hell together. You obviously deserve that eternity of torture, just as the other non believers do.
Hope I made Zed's point a little clearer.
As for the topic at hand, I totally agree with automaton. If you really believe in your ideas then you should try your darnedest to help the deluded people around you. Whether it requires ridicule depends on the preachers preference, and whether it would be effective or not. As Zed stated, it may be more harmful then helpful in some cases.
Sep 15, 2013 10:47 AM #1083841
Quote from '[NaimadMatrixNinja2000;1083577']Ah, I see. Problem is I haven't been around people that are either
A. Smart enough to discuss their beliefs or
B. Stupid enough to call it arrogant.
It's usually one extreme or the other. Can you give some examples of people doing this, please?
Quote from ZedThere is no need for an atheist to spit fire when they're tearing someone's beliefs apart. Yes, you need to make them see that they're being stupid, but the way to do that is not with ridicule. As a rule, the harder you push someone the harder they push back. If you can guide them gently to the right answer then it works, if not then they probably wouldn't have listened to you anyway.
Okay, I'll provide some examples of what I'm on about. There have been MANY that I've experienced, but I'll list three:
1) As I said, my mom calling Stephen Fry arrogant because he said that it's much less ludicrous to believe in multiple gods than one god, and because he apparently "thinks his opinion's better that anyone else's".
2) People (I'm sure you've experienced it) calling Richard Dawkins arrogant. I don't see how he is. At all. He doesn't talk down to those he debates with, but he still holds true to his belief that God is a delusion.
3) A girl I know (and at different times many others) calling David Hume arrogant and annoying for always dogmatically arguing against religion and miracles and God (and also saying that his arguments are bullshit, but that's irrelevant). I mean she hadn't read any of his works, only learned a few of his arguments in Philosophy class, but the point remains that she thought he was arrogant and obnoxious just simply because he had so many arguments against religious belief.
[edit]
I went back through my facebook friendship with someone to find the conversation, just in case you think I'm making it up, haha:
(Different guy here vvvv):
(Back to original girl now vvvv):
Sep 15, 2013 3:54 PM #1083915
So, is it arrogant to assume you're right and therefore have a right to profess your beliefs to others? "Arrogant" is a bit of a loaded word here. You have to have confidence in your beliefs certainly. I guess "arrogance" comes in if that confidence is unjustified.
I would say that anyone taking part in rational debate is not arrogant. You're only arrogant if you're dismissing the other person's view simply because it isn't your own, without any sort of reason or rationality. Whether or not you are arrogant depends on whether you would consider revising your position if the right evidence/arguments were laid before you. A large number of religious people do seem to fall under that category. Dawkins might, but he'd certainly claim not to.
I would say that anyone taking part in rational debate is not arrogant. You're only arrogant if you're dismissing the other person's view simply because it isn't your own, without any sort of reason or rationality. Whether or not you are arrogant depends on whether you would consider revising your position if the right evidence/arguments were laid before you. A large number of religious people do seem to fall under that category. Dawkins might, but he'd certainly claim not to.
Sep 15, 2013 4:19 PM #1083922
Quote from AutomatonI didn't notice any incorrect grammar when I read it :') If there were some I must have sub-consciously ignored it or something.
Personally I don't mind the whole ridicule sort of thing that atheists do. I try not to do it, myself, but I can see where it comes from. Richard Dawkins said that ridicule is a necessary and powerful tool in combating religion, and I tend to agree. You have to understand, (a lot of) atheists believe that a belief in God is the same as a belief in unicorns, and showing the absurdity of that is vital. In the same way, if a religious person believes that an atheist is immoral or stupid, they have every right to either ridicule the atheist, or to call them immoral. Besides what my mom said, the main reason for making this thread was because I'm tired of people acting as if people that argue for their beliefs are somehow arrogant. If you tell me that you don't want to discuss religion then fine, but don't call me arrogant just because I present my beliefs strongly, with conviction and as if they're fact. That's part of a society that places importance on the dialectic discussion. In my philosophy class I was the only person, along with one other, who defended David Hume's arguments (against god/religion/miracles). Others agreed with his reasoning, but didn't like "how aggressive he was, and how he has to criticise everything". I'm sorry, but if you believe that others are deluded, and that delusion has been the cause of conflict throughout the history of humanity, then you should damn well feel the need to tell people about it, and try to get them to see it from your point of view. If someone says "we should double the amount that our armed servicemen get from our taxes", and you completely disagree with that, why should you feel that you have to say "well everyone's entitled to their own opinion" or something similar? You should argue your point, unless the other person says they don't want to talk about it. It should be exactly the same way with religion.
Ridicule/harsh methods backfire.
They won't change anything, therefore are unnecessary from both atheists and theists such as myself. It's actually wrong in religion to do this. It gives a bad idea about your beliefs. When you believe in something, you have to consider yourself a representative for it. Bad or wrong ideas are exactly why many people are not into religion or even hate it.
Fyi for anyone who doesn't know already, I'm Muslim.
Sep 15, 2013 4:24 PM #1083926
See, I'm personally torn on this subject.
I'm extremely convinced by Mill's theories on truth/opinion, having read his On Liberty (which I personally consider to be pretty much gospel. Gotta love that book (Im sure Zed is dying to throw a spanner in the works here? I'm sure he has SOMETHING to whack Mill with)) and fallen in love with chapter two, on free speech and freedom of opinion (which could be considered a separate essay in itself, comprising so much of the book and being so well-contained).
Basically, a large component of his argument is the fact that human beings are fallible, and can easily be wrong about something which they truly believe. Because of this, he argues that we cannot, logically censor someone's opinion if we value truth - its entirely possible that their opinion is true, and no matter how sure we are that they are wrong, we ourselves are not infallible - we could be the ones who are mistaken, and therefore by preventing them from voicing their opinions, we would be depriving the rest of humanity from hearing those opinions and deciding for themselves.
It basically boils down to the fact that, in order to fully realise truth, all opinions need to be allowed free reign to be debated - we must be allowed to discuss ALL ideas freely, as only through doing so can we use logic and reason in order to come to truth.
This is basically the centre of my dilemma; it would suggest that, in order for humanity to discover truth, not only must we allow those with strong beliefs to debate, but we must encourage them to; it seems it is the DUTY of people with strong beliefs to debate them with others, for in doing so they will allow others to hear both sides of the argument, and thereby decide which to believe. By creating a debate between two opposing opinions, we allow humanity as a whole, even if not the individuals, to come closer to truth. So this would seem to suggest that it IS the duty of believers to be militant, in ANY belief (religious, moral, political ect.) which they hold, so that humanity can benefit from hearing their side of the argument. Even if they are wrong, we benefit from hearing their arguments clash with truth.
HOWEVER - there is another problem here. Mill also points out that the suppression of opinion occurs not only through civil, but social means. Yes, censorship can occur at the hands of the government. But the far more aggressive form of censorship is that which occurs from people all around us. Imagine an atheistic person living in the victorian era - while atheism might not have been illegal anymore, the majority of people still believed MILITANTLY in Christianity, and thought that atheism was fundamentally immoral, and misguided. In such a society, were an atheist to voice their opinions, they would often be shunned by those around them, due to other's militant christian beliefs - social penalties would be invoked upon such a person, in a way which would basically act as censorship. Imagine if you knew that, in voicing your beliefs, those around you would shun you, avoid association with you and enact social penalties (vague term, I'm not going to elaborate, but I'm sure you can imagine what I mean - many people have experienced social evils due to being 'different'.) - would you then voice your beliefs? It would act in a similar manner to knowing that you would be sent to jail for doing the same thing - you would avoid voicing your beliefs, because you would be punished by society for doing so.
This might lead to problems concerning militant beliefs. If certain people are completely militant in their beliefs, to the extent that they disrespect those who disagree with them (atheists calling christians stupid, christians calling atheists immoral) this can lead to a form of social censorship, impeding the progress of debate and truth. You could find an example of this in the southern, bible belt states in america. In more atheistic communities, its difficult for christians to voice their beliefs. Militant beliefs always have the risk of leading to intolerance.
The other problem, as Zed stated (and this is perhaps far greater) is that in having a militant belief, you can easily form a close-minded nature, and become unwilling to hear the opposite view - on the theism vs atheism thread, there have been references to 'Bliks', beliefs which shape what someone will accept as evidence. Basically, being TOO militant an close minded, and lead to an arrogant inability to consider other's arguments - in many cases, it can lead someone to disregard even the powerful arguments of those who disagree with them. So, problems can arise, in that militant beliefs can lead to the rejection of reason/rationality, which is a fundamental tool towards truth.
As such, while debate of ideas is important, in order to lead us to truth, I would argue that militantly sticking to your beliefs, without being able to listen to reason can actually be detrimental to the pursuit of truth.
So, I would disagree with automaton's statement that its wrong to hold an intellectual stance which allows everyone their belief, and refuses to be militant. Yes, we must debate, but we must also keep it strongly in our minds that we are fallible creatures, and that its entirely possible that we are wrong. yes, debating is important, and serves truth, hence we should debate what we believe in. But if our beliefs are too militant, this will cause us to forget the possibility that we are wrong. I would argue that, while we should debate, assuming our own infallibility is, in the end, a road towards the rejection of reason/rationality, and will ultimately guide us say from the truth.
I'm not saying someone who disagrees with you can't be wrong, but there's always the possibility, no matter how much you disagree with them, that they are right. So I would say we need to keep an open mind, in order to allow truth in.
I'm extremely convinced by Mill's theories on truth/opinion, having read his On Liberty (which I personally consider to be pretty much gospel. Gotta love that book (Im sure Zed is dying to throw a spanner in the works here? I'm sure he has SOMETHING to whack Mill with)) and fallen in love with chapter two, on free speech and freedom of opinion (which could be considered a separate essay in itself, comprising so much of the book and being so well-contained).
Basically, a large component of his argument is the fact that human beings are fallible, and can easily be wrong about something which they truly believe. Because of this, he argues that we cannot, logically censor someone's opinion if we value truth - its entirely possible that their opinion is true, and no matter how sure we are that they are wrong, we ourselves are not infallible - we could be the ones who are mistaken, and therefore by preventing them from voicing their opinions, we would be depriving the rest of humanity from hearing those opinions and deciding for themselves.
It basically boils down to the fact that, in order to fully realise truth, all opinions need to be allowed free reign to be debated - we must be allowed to discuss ALL ideas freely, as only through doing so can we use logic and reason in order to come to truth.
This is basically the centre of my dilemma; it would suggest that, in order for humanity to discover truth, not only must we allow those with strong beliefs to debate, but we must encourage them to; it seems it is the DUTY of people with strong beliefs to debate them with others, for in doing so they will allow others to hear both sides of the argument, and thereby decide which to believe. By creating a debate between two opposing opinions, we allow humanity as a whole, even if not the individuals, to come closer to truth. So this would seem to suggest that it IS the duty of believers to be militant, in ANY belief (religious, moral, political ect.) which they hold, so that humanity can benefit from hearing their side of the argument. Even if they are wrong, we benefit from hearing their arguments clash with truth.
HOWEVER - there is another problem here. Mill also points out that the suppression of opinion occurs not only through civil, but social means. Yes, censorship can occur at the hands of the government. But the far more aggressive form of censorship is that which occurs from people all around us. Imagine an atheistic person living in the victorian era - while atheism might not have been illegal anymore, the majority of people still believed MILITANTLY in Christianity, and thought that atheism was fundamentally immoral, and misguided. In such a society, were an atheist to voice their opinions, they would often be shunned by those around them, due to other's militant christian beliefs - social penalties would be invoked upon such a person, in a way which would basically act as censorship. Imagine if you knew that, in voicing your beliefs, those around you would shun you, avoid association with you and enact social penalties (vague term, I'm not going to elaborate, but I'm sure you can imagine what I mean - many people have experienced social evils due to being 'different'.) - would you then voice your beliefs? It would act in a similar manner to knowing that you would be sent to jail for doing the same thing - you would avoid voicing your beliefs, because you would be punished by society for doing so.
This might lead to problems concerning militant beliefs. If certain people are completely militant in their beliefs, to the extent that they disrespect those who disagree with them (atheists calling christians stupid, christians calling atheists immoral) this can lead to a form of social censorship, impeding the progress of debate and truth. You could find an example of this in the southern, bible belt states in america. In more atheistic communities, its difficult for christians to voice their beliefs. Militant beliefs always have the risk of leading to intolerance.
The other problem, as Zed stated (and this is perhaps far greater) is that in having a militant belief, you can easily form a close-minded nature, and become unwilling to hear the opposite view - on the theism vs atheism thread, there have been references to 'Bliks', beliefs which shape what someone will accept as evidence. Basically, being TOO militant an close minded, and lead to an arrogant inability to consider other's arguments - in many cases, it can lead someone to disregard even the powerful arguments of those who disagree with them. So, problems can arise, in that militant beliefs can lead to the rejection of reason/rationality, which is a fundamental tool towards truth.
As such, while debate of ideas is important, in order to lead us to truth, I would argue that militantly sticking to your beliefs, without being able to listen to reason can actually be detrimental to the pursuit of truth.
So, I would disagree with automaton's statement that its wrong to hold an intellectual stance which allows everyone their belief, and refuses to be militant. Yes, we must debate, but we must also keep it strongly in our minds that we are fallible creatures, and that its entirely possible that we are wrong. yes, debating is important, and serves truth, hence we should debate what we believe in. But if our beliefs are too militant, this will cause us to forget the possibility that we are wrong. I would argue that, while we should debate, assuming our own infallibility is, in the end, a road towards the rejection of reason/rationality, and will ultimately guide us say from the truth.
I'm not saying someone who disagrees with you can't be wrong, but there's always the possibility, no matter how much you disagree with them, that they are right. So I would say we need to keep an open mind, in order to allow truth in.
Sep 17, 2013 1:17 PM #1084699
Stephen Fry has been ostracized and degraded by theists because of his sexuality. I remember reading a piece he wrote awhile back about his depression and suicidal thoughts.
He has every right to oppose those who tell him he's a second rate citizen. Your mum shouldn't be throwing around the term arrogance so loosely.
It's important to express ones opinions. Atheists do it all too often. But it's not us that should be doing the convincing. It's theists. Not a single shred of evidence has ever arisen suggesting the legitimacy of any one of these cults. The thinking man has a right to question that which has no evidence, without fear of being labeled arrogant or strident. People give theism far too much respect.
I tell you there's a dragon in my backyard, you ask for proof. I tell you I am a 'mono-theist', you accept it. Don't.
And let's all make sure we make the important, correct, distinction between theism and deism. Deism is an uneducated cop-out. It's a guess based on ignorance (I will grant it's possibly true, but there is currently no evidence to suggest it). The good thing about deism... it doesn't harm anybody. Theism is the embodiment of human narcissism. It harms people everyday, whether you like it or not.
He has every right to oppose those who tell him he's a second rate citizen. Your mum shouldn't be throwing around the term arrogance so loosely.
It's important to express ones opinions. Atheists do it all too often. But it's not us that should be doing the convincing. It's theists. Not a single shred of evidence has ever arisen suggesting the legitimacy of any one of these cults. The thinking man has a right to question that which has no evidence, without fear of being labeled arrogant or strident. People give theism far too much respect.
I tell you there's a dragon in my backyard, you ask for proof. I tell you I am a 'mono-theist', you accept it. Don't.
And let's all make sure we make the important, correct, distinction between theism and deism. Deism is an uneducated cop-out. It's a guess based on ignorance (I will grant it's possibly true, but there is currently no evidence to suggest it). The good thing about deism... it doesn't harm anybody. Theism is the embodiment of human narcissism. It harms people everyday, whether you like it or not.