Refutation

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

After a few years on the forums; I stepped back and took a look at certain patterns evident in posts. The one with the most content were the ones in which others examined facets of simply one religion or the ones in which people compare two religions amiably.

Now, the point I guess I am trying to make is “not what makes your view superior to others?” but rather why can we not merely probe others in hope of understanding positions than seemingly attempt to dispose/change their views?

We cannot in any accordance justify one’s religion/worldview over another’s within reason.

One may argue “I am going to worship x because it will lead me to y”

Examining this from an epistemological perspective asking how does one know x and know y? This “if, then” notion banks on knowing x. Certainly one may believe x, and in a way know x, but absolute conviction to y stands on shaky ground because it has a lesser probabilty in comparison to x.

Regardless of what one believes, I again ask why do many find offense to one’s belief?

2

Satori
I think you’ve got two main reasons. The first is that almost everybody that posts here is living in response to a religion- they aren’t just an atheist, or a skeptic, or a whatever. They are what they are specifically because of flaws they found in whatever they used to be. Those flaws, and their own sense of discovery or liberation is what gives meaning to whatever they are now. I think for many, talking about their views without talking about how somebody else’s views suck would be like talking about Christianity without mentioning that Jesus guy.
The other reason is how I see things- I could create threads where I simply catalog my views, and create large lists of what my particular sect thinks about things, and those lists would contain a lot of data. But presenting a lot of data just doesn’t seem to me where the work in philosophy is to be done. It seems the more productive work is to be had by dialectic, and that involves contrasting with another view that doesn’t agree with your own. It doesn’t have to evolve into a fight, and it’s best if it doesn’t, but you are walking a line.

And I don’t like your epistemological evaluation at all. Like so many arguments, you have to abstract it from the subject matter to see it’s merit. People are forever saying ‘I believe Y on the basis of X’, and we don’t typically find anything wrong with that, even though X is rarely certain, and thusly Y would be even less certain, by your reasoning.

3

Fear, they may be right and you are wrong. Belief is fragile, faith is fragile stick that with ego and you can become defensive. You protect what needs protection, because it might be defensless.

4

I find it incredibly ironic that the guy decrying attempts to subvert other “worldviews” is only doing so from the understanding (or view) that it is “wrong to decry” worldviews.

How can you consistently argue for not arguing?

Anyone?

5

By having an incredible persistant gene???

6

I agree with Uccisore’s post. I would add a question–is there a difference beween the way we express our religious views in real life as opposed to how we express them in virtual reality in philosophy debates?
I have friends who are religious fundies. Religious fundamentalism has scarred my life. So how do I deal with a fundie friend? First, I would tell him that I’m happy he has found a belief that affords meaning and value for his existence. Second, I acknowledge that his desire for me to have these things via his beliefs is an expression of friendship, a desire to share. Then, if he tells me I can in no way achieve such meaning and value without adhering to his beliefs, the friendship becomes iffy. The third idea seems to be predominant here. Too often debaters are here to proselytize, not to discuss. They see all contrary opinion as some adversarial force bent on distorting some one real truth.
In debates, it is good to hold strong opinions and to present them as best one can. Refutation is not an evil opposing some good. And anyone whose beliefs are self-substantiating would have no need of holding such beliefs up against rigorous opposition unless he/she got these beliefs because of fear,guilt or shame–all negative foundations for a stable belief–all houses built on sand.

7

Makes sense. Perhaps I have difficulty with this change that occurred in people’s lives since I have not had a split or forcible reevaluation.

I agree with dialectic education. I feel that the first paragraph explains the “why it does evolve into a fight”.

I guess I was appealing to those who are logically inclined personally I hate logic as it detracts from our Selfs if u will.

Ideas don’t have arms or legs so I guess they can’t defend themselves. Pansies. :sunglasses:

Shotgun,

There are multiple levels of discussing one’s world view. For instance, say I find your logo to be awful because I don’t like Ford. Is that the same as telling you that I find your religion stupid? Certainly not, apples and oranges. I don’t like my shirt today, does that change my world view? I don’t like when people smack when they eat; if I tell them not to does that entail a change in world view equivocal to religion? I can rattle off many other examples of not changing the world view I am discussing.

I am a philosophy student, if I was in that position I would be a masochist and doomed (more so than I am). Instead, I appeal to manners and respect; remembering that there are people on the other side of the screen is imperative.

Also, my statement was a response to the blatant disregard for other’s perspectives and lack of civility. If you find those to be unappealing things perhaps you would have not interjected a statement without understanding my intent. A simple; “can you explain yourself further?” would have sufficed.

I would certainly say yes. Often, we forget that there are people with full convictions and beliefs on the other end of these wires. The anonymity granted by a forums allows others to appear overzealous when I am sure in life they would seem mellow.

Well said.

8

Mr. Satori.

You say this:

Now, the point I guess I am trying to make is “not what makes your view superior to others?” but rather why can we not merely probe others in hope of understanding positions than seemingly attempt to dispose/change their views?

Quite an honorable position (at least on the surface.)

Indeed…why should “we” always focus on “what makes our view superior to the view of others?” Instead, shouldn’t we “merely probe” or seek to learn about another’s position instead of trying to “change” their minds, or their “view?”

But then…Mr. Satori, along comes ol’ Shotgun, who raises a very telling critique against your position.

Perhaps you’ve missed the subtlety of your own “position.”

Of course, it’s always popular for the speaker (yourself in this case) to assume that he or she is speaking from a totally neutral “view.”

You respond to my critique by saying…(if you’ll allow a brief characterization) "There are different levels of critique one can level against another, and I was clearly only referring to one class of critiques."

Given this…it now seems to me, that your entire position is essentially useless…in that…it’s perfectly ok to try and change other peoples views (mine in this case…since you responded with a polemic to bring me around to your view point…) unless the act of trying to “change someone’s view” is not on the proper level that you have arbitrarily decided on at the outset.

Perhaps, Mr. Satori, you should simply try to understand where I’m coming from rather than argue against me?

I see these sorts of…“come on…let’s all be fair and rational” posts or statements…(more properly: attitude) so often that I felt I had to speak out against it here. All folks should submit to other views…except ME! Right?

Please…

9

You see right through me. Not an amiable and honestly interested aspect within me.

Speaking of yourself in the 3rd person is a frightening stance.

I neglected to stand up on my soap box. Allow me to go grab it and then I will sneak in the fact that all my views are better than yours. I was speaking in a neutral view. My perspective is nothing like yours; yet I attend to you as an equal. I am a skeptic in life; I feel we are all just flirting with illusions but what I believe is irrelevant to anyone but me. So, being neutral in this sense would be to accept and give reasons as to why I/others think the way they do.

I am no more changing your views than a weather forecaster who tells you it will rain. You can take an umbrella or not. Either way, the severity of your argument is sheerly lacking any depth. You “throw out the baby with the bath water”. I am asking about a large driving force for many of us, and you say it is a HUGE error and malicious intent to ask you to examine a piece of sand. But, if you prefer to antagonize other people instead of accept and question them, by all means.

The choice of a polemic was to show the false dichotomy.

Unlike me, I do know where you are coming from. I read your blog a few weeks ago. I am not trying to change any part of where you come from. I am just curious as to why/ or why not people cannot respond with great decency to others? Now, you have clearly pre-judged me in that you assume my benevolence is actually self-gratifying. This is an online forum. I respect others on this forum because I know they are people. People have feelings/ideas/loved ones etc. Belittling said people’s ideas/feelings/loved ones would not make me feel well. So, I ask why others do it.

Took the words right out of my mouth! Hot damn! Clearly, I post so much dribble here that I am trying to sway others to join my cult. /reduce sarcasm levels here

I have submitted to others views. I came on these forums when I was 19, I knew/thought very little. I have respect for great posters who have come and gone not because of their ability to argue, but rather how they argue (I say argue in the philosophical sense). Your view of me is that of a proud monster apparently. So, to that I shrug and will allow your pervading sense of self-righteousness in classifying me to be.

No.

10

When one finds a belief to be lacking or even childish then one begins to wonder about the minds that are taken by it, and then one realizes that these same minds, that same judgment that fell for such simplistic, subjective, absurdities represent a majority; a majority that votes and affects human destiny even if by its simplicity and how easily it is manipulated and controlled.

Then one realizes that a belief is not only a belief but it is a reflection of the inner working of an alien mind and one is horrified by its simplicity, gullibility impressionability and general quality.
One then wonders how so many idiots can be allowed to exist and one concludes that it is because this feebleness of mind is protected from the natural culling mechanisms by man-0made constructs and moral sheltering systems and then one realizes that this is how decadence and decline happens and this is how an idiot, like George W.,. gets elected, and one is horrified by the level of stupidity, because reason can be understood and predicted but stupidity is chaos personified.

Did I miss anything?

11

Wow Mr. Satori…you’re really working hard to change my view point aren’t you?

Say yes…and you defeat the entire purpose of this thread…

Say no…and… you must account for why you’re even posting in the first place. (Remember, if your view is as you say “irrelevant to anyone but” you…then you cannot account for your posting it.)

I can’t make my position any clearer.

12

Toiling away to shatter all your hopes and dreams.

My religious view is irrelevant to anyone but me. Now, how I feel about my fellow man certainly carries merits, even the way you feel. I already stated my purpose for this post and Ucci and others have responded greatly. Read the statements over. You are too eager to accuse me of ulterior motives than to trouble over the real content.

Your argument is becoming circular. Keep your viewpoint if you wish. I will not lose any z’s.

13

Irr,

I think it is a mix. We are both freer to express our opinions as well as freer to be dicks about it. On ILP I’m pretty candid about my Confucianism whereas IRL it never really comes up and I’ll go out of my way to not bring it up. To Asians, it is anti-modern and to Amero-Europeans it is horrifically sexist at the very best. Plus it isn’t proselytizing, so why would I bring it up? I can be more expressive of it here.

But there is a fine line between “saying what you think” and “being a dick”. Let’s face it, you don’t find a site called “I love philosophy” without thinking your opinions are of some merit. And that is OK provided you are willing to learn and, more importantly, willing to be wrong and willing to change. If you don’t have opinions, if you don’t have any vested interest in being right, well, you are bound to be a pretty boring poster. Assuming you would post at all.

Maybe it is a virtue-ethics things. As a virtue ethicist, I’m always on guard against aligning myself with ‘the good’. After all, it is sorta a nebulous quality – ‘what is the good?’ is the kinda question that leads to a lot of hemming and hawing. Now, since I’m a virtue ethicist and given the previous paragraph, I also think virtue ethics is the best descriptor for human ethical engagement, I’ll say I’m (at least trying, with varying degrees of success. Within the religion section I think I do a pretty solid job at it, but I wouldn’t nominate myself for mod of Social Sciences anytime too soon) to guard myself against aligning myself with the good. When that happens, you are right and other people are wrong because, well, they don’t agree with you. So when your obviously brilliant arguments fail, well, the other people are not only wrong but given the beauty of virtue and the deformity of vice, they are also horrifically flawed. So why not be a dick to them? They don’t respond to logic, after all. May as well try and beat them into submission. And if they don’t respond to that, may as well try and publicly humiliate them so they don’t infect others.

That isn’t just why people are dicks on obscure fora on the internet either. That is what the Inquisition and Al-Queda are about. You can construct a damned good model for most atrocities in history using this idea. I’m not sure such a model is actually valid, but let’s leave that aside for the moment.

On the 'net you aren’t really penalized for such behavior. After all, on your end it is just a computer screen and it is a character rather than you speaking. So guilt isn’t really a factor. And since the 'net is entirely anonymous, shame can’t really be applied either. If you get housed badly enough, you can adopt a new screen name and start over again. Plus the 'net is big, so there will eventually be a niche you find that thinks your particular brand of crazy is awesome. So that reinforces the behavior.

I’m not really sure where I’m going with this. It was a long day so I think I’m rambling more than a bit. So . . .

Xunzian, neither sane nor insane. Discuss amongst yourselves. I’m getting verklempt!

14

Great points Xun.

15

Ierrellus-

There’s a big difference between how I talk about religion here, and how I talk about it in real life. I’ve been around long enough under this name, here and there, that I don’t really feel ‘anonymous’ anymore. BUT, in a place like this, specifically designated as a forum where you discuss philosophy of religion, I feel justified in expecting/demanding an audience that is interested in the subject matter, and treats the field with respect. That changes everything.

16

Ucci,

Yes-and-no. I can’t speak for you since you pre-date me, but I kinda came on ILP with my cock out. My Confucian identity was decidedly overt at the start of my ILP experience. That was part of the point. I’d already shifted from the “vague incoherent stuff mum told me that makes sense” stage to the “reading stuff, but not really knowing my mouth from my asshole” stage. ILP gave me a place where I could learn to make that distinction in a great degree of freedom. Sure, I am invested right now. I’d be pretty devastated (embarrassingly so, actually) if I lost ILP access but when I started ILP, well, it isn’t like I was going to run into any of you and recognize you at a bar or work function and have to have an awkward conversation about it. The initial anonymity of the net is substantially greater than the initial anonymity in real life. At least outside of swingers’ clubs and that should tell you something.

17

Then should I submit to shotgun’s paranoia as in any way defending religious values? I cringe before fundie trolls! I’ve met many spiritual people who put faith to the the test, who do not whine over differences of opinion, who do improve the human condition by radiating singular postive activity into the plural human tragedy. Shouldn’t religion embrace larger values than those that sustain some concept of meaning and value for a single self? If not, the self is reduced to ego, to an insatiatable appetite for constant reinforcement of isolationist views.

18

When I came to ILP, I was interested in the religion forum because in RL, the divisions were so great. I wasn’t put off by the beliefs of another person even though I had problems with how they managed to hold those beliefs (being non-religious). My true interest was the social impact of religious belief and wanted to see what sort of compromises could be obtained that might begin to allow the extreme ends of theist-atheist to enter into dialog instead of diatribe.

I’ve been disappointed. I found myself doing nothing but squabbling with the is - isn’t argumentation that goes absolutely no where. I see refutation not so much about refuting other people’s beliefs, but the social consequences of those beliefs.

A current not-ILP example: We have a VP candidate that has expressed strong religious beliefs. I could care less about her beliefs, but I certainly care a great deal about how she has, and would force others to conform to those beliefs. That is the real rub. It isn’t what you believe for you, it is what you believe for me.

I haven’t found any great answers, because most of the folks are still looking for justification of their beliefs and anything that threatens those beliefs devolves into the is-isn’t blather.

19

Man is a slave to right and wrong.

Before we can act, we must believe our actions are right.

Beliefs that conflict with our own halt our activity, because they force us to stop and question whether our actions are actually right. Because we must act to live (gather food and other resources), a conflicting idea at root level is quite literally a threat to our continued livelyhood.

That is why we defend them so fiercely.

Now, our actions could conceivably be a purely intellectual pursuit of truth. And for brief periods of time, we do engage in that kind of action. That’s how technology evolves. But the rewards of that kind of action are also purely intellectual. That won’t put food in our stomachs.

20

I normally stay away from point by point rebuttals, choosing instead to focus on the issue itself; however, in this case, I feel such a response is warranted in order to directly highlight Mr. Satori’s “consistent” inconsistency.

Toiling away to shatter all your hopes and dreams.

What an artful way to express a sarcastic remark at my expense! Perhaps you mean to imply here that you are not trying to “shatter my hopes and dreams” at all? This is what I take from the statement.

Now…of course, the crux of the issue here is what exactly entails all my “hopes and dreams.”

The discussion to begin with was about “our views.” Granted, “views” is a little ambiguous, (see my previous reply here for a demonstration of why an arbitrary definition of this term invalidates this entire thread).

Perhaps it is my “view” that you are indeed “toiling away to shatter my hopes and dreams.” Your statements to the contrary then (sarcastic or otherwise) would be an attempt to subvert MY view!

Since you have no problems trying to subvert, or “shatter” my “views” (views being translated to “hopes and dreams”) then your original statement:

Now, the point I guess I am trying to make is “not what makes your view superior to others?” but rather why can we not merely probe others in hope of understanding positions than seemingly attempt to dispose/change their views?

…is completely contradicted.

In an attempt to counter ol’ Shotgun on this point, you try arbitrarily redefining the term “views” in a completely ambiguous, counterproductive, and useless way. Consider my paraphrase of your redefinition:

“Views” consist of all those “views” that I personally consider (on the basis of my “views”) to be controversial, and worthy of discussion. While my own “views” are to be held as foundational and beyond critique of others…less the others bare the wrath of my sarcastic wit!"

Now… while you’re trying to figure out how to get your panties out of the bunch my statement just put them in… consider your next statement:

My religious view is irrelevant to anyone but me. Now, how I feel about my fellow man certainly carries merits

Here is a blatant affirmation of the truth of my characterization of your position. In one sentence, you class a certain group of views under the name “religious.” In the next sentence, you state a “view” (…how I feel about my fellow man carries merit…) that you obviously don’t intend to be a subject of your discussion on “views.”

You expect “religious” views (whatever they are) to be respected, but you expect your foundational philosophical views to be accepted without contest.

Who says that your “feelings towards your fellow man carry merit?” Obviously that is your personal “view”…one which…by stating…you are trying to convince me of.

If you weren’t trying to convince me of the truth of this view, then why say it?

You refute yourself Mr. Satori with every post you make here. I have conclusively shown how. The fact that you refuse to see it…really isn’t my problem.

I already stated my purpose for this post and Ucci and others have responded greatly
Way to waive the “UCCI” flag at me! “Shotgun…Ucci is a Christian, and he’s nice to me! You’re not!”

Perhaps the blatant inconsistency of your post has been missed on “Ucci and the others?” That would be my guess.

Read the statements over. You are too eager to accuse me of ulterior motives than to trouble over the real content.

The problem here, (besides your condescending tone) is the fact that I am the only one here actually critiquing your statements. I haven’t accused you of anything. Instead, I have clearly articulated how inconsistent your post here is.

If I wished to diagnose your motives, I would simply appeal to a Christian doctrine of man…and demonstrate how all fallen men are God-haters who attempt to suppress the truth of God with lies. (Lies like the philosophies attempting to arbitrarily define their own foundations into a position beyond reproach while leaving the Christian’s foundations open for critique.)

It is true, as Proverbs says: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.

Hopefully you’ll try to convince me why my views are subject to critique, but yours are to be understood?

God bless!