Are the benefits of religion greater than the costs to society?

If someone believes (meta-belief) that the Bible is an adequate source for validating a belief, and another person believes that all beliefs must be falsifiable against real world evidence, then they differ in a way that renders real communication extremely difficult.

I wouldn't call this a good thing, and I do not feel that I have to accept someone's beliefs just because they are founded on a different meta-belief. I accept that I am unlikely to ever change someone's belief when we are set that far apart, and therefore I might as well interact with them politely.

In that meta-sense, yes, all beliefs are inherently created equal — that is, all founded in the human mind and requiring validation of some sort. However, that does not require that I give equal respect to all beliefs no matter how absurd.

Now, if you're talking about debate... yes, I could take a Christian perspective and argue that opposing gay marriage is wrong because Jesus wants us to love everyone, or some such. However, it makes me feel kind of hypocritical inside.

edited 10th Dec '11 9:33:14 PM by Fighteer

You will never convince a Young Earth Creationist that they are wrong based on the Theory of Evolution. Never. That means that someone will live their lives a YEC, but you could have stopped them by showing them biblical evidence that they are wrong (which totally exists). It's improbable, but it is far more likely.

Edit: "Jesus wants us to love everyone or some such" is not a valid argument. Jussayin'.

edited 10th Dec '11 9:33:46 PM by TheEarthSheep

I'd rather just accept him as lost and talk about football or something. And try to keep him away from the local school board.

edited 10th Dec '11 9:34:18 PM by Fighteer

That's a constructive attitude.

"Respect" is a rather nebulous idea.

Also, Fighteer, please fix the title. I'm having an OCD attack over it.

I notice that every time I come in here. It's awful.

And I did define what I meant by "Respect", to be fair.

edited 10th Dec '11 9:37:42 PM by TheEarthSheep

Just send a Holler for it. But I went ahead and fixed it.

"Respect" is nebulous only when used in general terms. I can respect a person without respecting their fundamental beliefs. I can also respect someone's beliefs without respecting them as a person. Endless variety.

I say it's nebulous because the term is applied to different, sometimes separate concepts.

For example, do you respect a person because they are a human being, or do you respect someone because they did things you like and consider important.

I.e. do you respect George Bush as a human being, or because of what he accomplished as President. Is respect an inherent quality given because of moral concerns, an earned quality given due to merit, or both—but also the same term applied to different concepts?

In other words, nebulous...

Very different concepts, all collapsed in one term, which is why one has to qualify it.

For example, I (maybe, I'd have to think about it) respect some of the things Bush accomplished while not respecting others and/or his personal ideology.

Separately, I respect all human beings as fundamentally working in what they perceive to be the best interests of themselves and others, unless they prove themselves unworthy of that respect.

edited 10th Dec '11 9:45:57 PM by Fighteer

~shrug~

I'm simply saying that "respect" in this context doesn't necessarily clearly convey whatever you mean by it.

I respect that other people with other beliefs have a fundamental equality with me and my own beliefs, simply by virtue of neither one being ultimately provable in relation to morality and ethics. Morality isn't the same as validity, however, and an idea can be equally moral (that is to say, theoretically lacking in objective moral value, as we don't have an objective standard of morality) without being equally valid to another.

That doesn't mean that I respect the belief in, say, neoconservativism as a positive thing, for example, or religious fundamentalism, etc.

edited 10th Dec '11 10:01:35 PM by USAF713

I'm sorry, in which context are we discussing the meaning of "respect"? That seems kind of important, to me.

@Earth Sheep, etc. re the "Good Samaritan" parable. IMHO, the parable is about who should be considered a "good neighbor". Do you judge people by who or what they are, or by what they do? What really matters? The comparison isn't between the Samaritan and who that person helped. It was between the Samaritan and the others who didn't help. You must love those who are generous to you, no matter who they are.

"...You can't just say, "You're a moron for believing this, so you're not a logical human being just like me."

This is the position of values pluralism- where we tolerate, live and work with anyone who practices tolerance toward others, irregardless of their stated belief system.

@Fighteer: "...The only things, to me, that distinguish the validity of one belief over another, are (a) their applicability to real life; (b) their ability to be falsified."

Actually, I have trouble accepting that at face value. Do you "believe in" Justice, Beauty, Free Will, or Time? None of those things can even be coherently defined, let alone tested.

"If someone believes (meta-belief) that the Bible is an adequate source for validating a belief, and another person believes that all beliefs must be falsifiable against real world evidence, then they differ in a way that renders real communication extremely difficult."

There are other options besides just those two.

@USAF: "I'm simply saying that "respect" in this context doesn't necessarily clearly convey whatever you mean by it."

That's why I used the term "tolerate" instead.

"Morality isn't the same as validity, however, and an idea can be equally moral (that is to say, theoretically lacking in objective moral value, as we don't have an objective standard of morality) without being equally valid to another."

I think you're saying the same thing as Earth Sheep, the position I called "values pluralism".

edited 11th Dec '11 1:40:01 PM by DeMarquis

I guess the parable is subject to interpretation, but it seems like we have basically the same idea of it, unless I'm mistaken?

Well, I've used my interpretation of it as an argument against rejecting homosexuals from the Church.

Ah, well, that's good enough for me! *brofist*

Maybe I'm being too pedantic.

Thread Hop

I don't know about specific incidents of religion costing society, but don't all major religions promote values that are beneficial to society?

I don't think anyone here is trying to claim that religion does not have or has not had any value.

Benefits of Thread Hop.