Religions, ideologies, and the cultural protections afforded to both

[ramseya]

hey, a little bit of an aside, but Richard Dawkins made a point that we would find it inane to refer to a child as a "Republican child" or a "Keynesian child" but society finds no wrong in the phrase "Christian child".

just an interesting aside.

[Elok]

Well, I would find it silly to listen to a bishop's opinion on biology, yet society finds no problem with some biologist discussing theology. Go figure.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, I would find it silly to listen to a bishop's opinion on biology, yet society finds no problem with some biologist discussing theology. Go figure.

Who would tell you how stupid it is?

[Elok]

Nobody. We'd have to have a mature discussion consisting solely of people who know the subject. Horrific, I know. But don't worry, it won't happen anytime soon.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
Nobody. We'd have to have a mature discussion consisting solely of people who know the subject. Horrific, I know. But don't worry, it won't happen anytime soon.

It already happened. It was called the Dark Ages.

[Elok]

And that calls for a Get serious, Kid.

[Kidlicious]

Seriously though, you're being extremely elitist.

[Elok]

Not at all. Do you approve of the folks in Kansas screaming about how man was made in the image and likeness of God, God isn't a monkey, so Darwin must be wrong? I'm guessing not. Well, I don't approve of the inversion of that situation any more than I approve of that situation itself. I've no doubt that Dawkins is a splendid biologist, which is why he should stick to biology and STFU about things he doesn't know about.

[onodera]

To me, religion consists of rituals, myths and ethics. Usually, the myth is the first, and rituals and ethics are derived from it, though are influenced by other factors.
For example, classic protestants waged a war against rituals and the basic Christian myth underwent some changes: the holy trinity is less important than the persona of Jesus alone. Pentecostals have invented their own rituals, different from mainline protestants and catholics, but similar to religious trance found in other religions.
But what we want to talk here are ethics: the set of rules that the believer should follow. Sometimes the line between rituals and ethics is a bit blurry, for example, fasting is both a ritual and an ethic. But fasting doesn't affect other people, so let's look at something that does.

For example, the holy book of a religion A says, "a woman must be subservient to her man". Should the followers be allowed to say that?
If they shouldn't, should they be allowed to believe that? There's freedom of religion, after all.
If they should, should a husband be able to enforce that rule? If his wife also follows A, he won't have to do that. She voluntary gives up some of her rights as they're incompatible with her faith. But what if she doesn't? All sexes are equal, by law, so the man can't enforce that part of his beliefs. Yes, he can find himself another wife, but what if his current wife used to follow A and they had a church wedding and A doesn't allow divorces?

Let's look at religion B that says it's an abomination to share a house with a homosexual. A follower of B is leasing a room and a gay turns up. The follower says he won't let the room to him, and the gay sues him. Fair Housing Act is at the gay's side, but the follower has freedom of religion at his side. He didn't exactly infringe on the gay person's rights, did he? That was his own house, after all?

Let's go back to religion A. The man's wife is basically an apostate, and religion A says apostacy is punishable by death.
On one hand, that belief violated the freedom of religion of the wife. She is free to change her faith. The husband should be prevented from killing her.
On the other hand, it is an integral part of his beliefs. Should he be allowed to say that his wife should be killed? He'll probably get sued for death threats.
Should he be allowed to believe that? Should you be able to ban a religion which ethics contradict the law?

If you say you should, take a look at this: most religions say they're the only true religion, and all others aren't. Should they all also be banned for saying that outright?

Probably no. But should then a newspaper be able use the right of free speech to advocate replacing it with censorship? Should a party be able to run in the elections if its platform includes the dismantling of the democratic system and its replacement with a dictatorship?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Elok
Not at all. Do you approve of the folks in Kansas screaming about how man was made in the image and likeness of God, God isn't a monkey, so Darwin must be wrong? I'm guessing not. Well, I don't approve of the inversion of that situation any more than I approve of that situation itself. I've no doubt that Dawkins is a splendid biologist, which is why he should stick to biology and STFU about things he doesn't know about.

So nobody should ever write a book about anything they aren't a professional at? Nobody should ever write a book to simply express what they want to express, to tell the world, "This is what I think, and these are the reasons why I think so"?

[Elok]

Oh, you can write whatever you please. It's just that if your opinions on a subject are ill-informed and idiotic (as, IIRC, Dawkins's are), they should not get much attention.

EDIT: Reviewed Dawkins on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if his problem is ignorance so much as not wanting to understand. Witness this quote, dug out of his Wiki entry:

I think that Gould's separate compartments was a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp. But it's a very empty idea. There are plenty of places where religion does not keep off the scientific turf. Any belief in miracles is flat contradictory not just to the facts of science but to the spirit of science.

Well, I suspect the bit about Gould is quite true. But that last sentence is highly problematic. Miracles are by definition not subject to scientific testing; they're one-off events, not repeatable experiments. The whole point of them is that they're freak occurrences in contradiction to our understanding of the laws of nature. Any "miracle" which could be explained by science would not be miraculous at all, just a previously unexplained naturalistic phenomenon.

So he's either stating the obvious while implying a point it won't support, or just being a doofus. Dishonest or dense, take your pick. I suspect what he means is, "Miracles do not fit with my worldview, therefore they must be wrong."

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
Not at all. Do you approve of the folks in Kansas screaming about how man was made in the image and likeness of God, God isn't a monkey, so Darwin must be wrong? I'm guessing not.

I don't see that as the same thing. Such people really aren't interested finding out about truths. I've heard people like that say many times that it must be depressing to not believe in God. To me that means that they have to real interest in considering that their beliefs might be wrong.

Well, I don't approve of the inversion of that situation any more than I approve of that situation itself. I've no doubt that Dawkins is a splendid biologist, which is why he should stick to biology and STFU about things he doesn't know about.

So you are comparing Dawkins to some redneck from Kansas? Nice.

[Elok]

In terms of willful ignorance, albeit about different subjects, yes.

[Starchild]

Darwkins is an ass that gets other scientists' backs up. It's his smothering superiority attitude. I've got friends who had him as a lecturer and they just longed for him to be wrong on some point to bring him down a peg.

[Elok]

Thank you, Starchild. But I have to ask, why's he in your sig?