Reply To: Reeling from Christian friend's bigotry

[DrBob]

@Davis, by contrast on the other side, I see a few forum regulars who are difficult to engage with productively because their positions aren’t consistently rational or well-informed.

So, for example:

If you quote their particularily foul lines in their scriptures in addition to pointing out contradictions, extremely questionable wisdom or commandments or in any way to evaluate their faith…you are a fundamentalist.

If they themselves don’t treat “particularily [sic] foul lines in their scriptures” as being authoritative, then yes. You are being more fundamentalist than they are, or you are taking passages out of context just to advance an agenda rather than proceed rationally.

The peer-reviewed scripture of science is full of bad science. We don’t condemn science for that if it’s not what we’re teaching in science now. Why would we condemn religion or any other discipline if its historical writings aren’t perfect? Unless we’re fundamentalist, and we believe that absolute literal authority resides in those writings. Personally, I don’t think that’s rational.

If you judge their history as an institution (their history of grievous crimes) you are only focussing [sic] on the negative. You are a fundamentalist.

Nonsense. You should learn about the (full, culturally embedded) history of institutions, and learn from both the good and the bad. At the same time, one can look at the Native American genocide in the U.S. and condemn it while still not coming to the conclusion that representative democracy is an awful institution. It’s not rational to believe that any human institution or group of humans is going to be perfect.

If you ask them direct and clear questions…you are demanding too much. Desiring a definitive set of moral laws (even a few basic ones) from those who profess that only their sense of morality is valid…is way beyond a reasonable request. You are a fundamentalist.

Yes, if you truly desire a definitive set of moral laws in English, then you’re a fundamentalist. Expecting that it’s possible to reduce all of morality to a codex in a human language isn’t rational. Heck, we can’t really say that anything we know right now is a definitive physical law, let alone a moral one. What we do know about physical laws requires a lot of study to really understand. Same thing with “moral laws.”

Pointing out chronic problems of predatory priests raping children or gay priests having night long sex parties…is betraying a sexual or pornographic obsession. You are a fundamentalist.

No, pointing out those problems is honest. Those have been, and occasionally still are, very real problems. Humans are humans. We commit unspeakable horrors sometimes. We cover things up in the hopes of avoiding embarrassment or financial loss or worse. Those acts should be condemned. The perpetrators should be jailed if the evidence supports it.

At the same time, we should be rational and recognize that crimes and coverups are not unique to any one institution or type of institution. We can condemn some Wall Street Bankers and say they should have been jailed while at the same time recognizing that banking in general is a good thing for human societies. We should recognize that just because there have been horrible crimes and fraud committed by individual scientists, that doesn’t invalidate the practice of science. Similarly, just because there have been horrible crimes committed by individual priests, that doesn’t invalidate the practice of religion.

Asking clear questions and expecting remotely clear answers is unfair. Religion is just a concept after all. Repeating the question ad infinitum…makes you…guess? A funda-fu**ing-mentalist.

No, asking simplistic questions and seeking simplistic answers is childish, or at least the mark of a beginner in a field. The real world is complex, and nuanced. No matter what the discipline is – science, economics, history, religion, engineering – it takes time and effort and study to really understand.

If you point out the circus of insane activity amongst their members…you are a fundamentalist.

Not at all. However, if you point out the circus of insane activity done by a fraction of their members and attribute it to all of their members or the institution itself, you’re just expressing your own bias or prejudice. If you do it when they don’t even consider those folks members of their group, then you’re adding ignorance on top of bias.

If you point out something that makes their church look bad…in every case you are only referring to the great masses who don’t really understand the religion as it is meant to be. What is that? Asking that question is unreasonable and that makes you a fundamentalist.

No, believing that people are the same thing as corporations or ideas mostly makes you foolish. Granted, fundamentalists are also foolish, but this is different.

56% of high-school educated Americans can’t pass a knowledge test on basic government that is required for foreigners to become U.S. citizens. We can say that indicates a problem with our educational system, or with those people’s level of study or commitment. What we can’t say is that the presence of ignorant Americans means that American constitutional democracy is bad, or that all Americans are ignorant.

No different for religion.

So in conclusion, it’s not a matter of technique or any form of game. The issue is that each of these things is a really poor, biased, or irrational argument no matter what the field is. There is a great deal to criticize about religion or the religious, but it should be done fairly and rationally.