The Tabboo of Talking About Belief

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

In almost every discussion of religion one can cuss or discuss various words, concepts, dogmatic assertions, history, and on and on… BUT there is a tabboo that says we cannot challenge the beliefs of others. We may say that such and such belief is irrational or unsupported by any means but itself, and of course, that is also saying something about those who hold those beliefs. We can’t even ask anyone about those beliefs without raising the walls of defensiveness. There is a tacit social understanding that religious belief enjoys a social shield against critical examination. In all facets of living we have no problem scrutinizing the beliefs promulgated by any other social institution. Governance and law must always be prepared to explain itself in ways acceptable to the people. But religious belief is taken off the table. If a government official were to say that Katrina was God’s punishment for iniquity, he would be run out of town on a rail, but if such a pronouncement comes from a religious figure, no one will challenge the beliefs that make such a statement possible. Why? Because religious beliefs are given an immunity to the questioning and standards of veracity required in all other aspects of our lives.

Isn’t it time that we begin asking religious belief to begin backing its claims with the same reasoning systems we employ elsewhere? Or do we allow the tabboo to remain in place?

2

Time to begin? What is all this crap I’ve been responding to for five years? :slight_smile:

The wall of defensiveness and refusal to discuss comes from a disparity I've talked to in a couple other threads-  when it comes to religion, morality, and politics, everybody over a certain age is expected or required to have an  opinion.  [i]Everybody[/i], even that guy who works at the 7-11.   Now, that guy isn't a philosopher, he doesn't care about that stuff- he's never going to read Plantinga or Russel or whomever.  Nevertheless, he's expected to have convictions in those areas, even if they are uneducated.    So what happens when you have a society full of people compelled to have uneducated convictions?  I think you can expect to get exactly the kinds of taboos we have.  The guy from 7-11 intuits, rationally, that there's no real point to arguing about his faith with his equally uneducated co-worker. 
 Now, among people who actually know what they're talking about- religious people with informed opinions, I think this taboo pretty much doesn't exist, and that's also what we'd expect.
3

Hi Ucc,

Uneducated convictions… well, I suppose that is a fair description of what the majority of the folks have, but the point is that the tabboo says that no one can challenge those uneducated convictions. We aren’t supposed to challenge the “because dad said so” beliefs of others no matter how irrational they may be. The suicide bomber may be wrong, but challenging the beliefs that led to to blow himself and others to bits and pieces isn’t allowed. So I would ask the same question; Can we hold religious beliefs up to the same scrutiny as any other belief sysytem? Communism was analyzed, critiqued, assembled and disassembled multiple times and from every angle. As a belief system, it was a failed experiment. It failed in the marketplace of social organization. The beliefs generated by religion aren’t held to the same standards of inquiry and accountability. This isn’t to say that every human doesn’t experiance some sort of spirtitual need, but religion is taught. Do we wish to continue teaching those irrational ‘uneducated convictions’ or might we reasonably ask religion to begin submitting to the same standards we place on all other aspects of communal living?

4

tentative

Yes, that's right.  I think it depends on who 'we' are, though. If 'we' are other laity with no experience in what we're talking about, then we aren't supposed to challenge other people's beliefs because our house isn't in any better shape then there's.  If we are experts (or even armchair philosophers), then we aren't supposed to challenge the likes of them, because presumably we have better things to do with our big brains.  So there is a bit of a Catch-22, I agree.  I learned a long time ago that your average neo-pagan college student has no interest in having their beliefs challenged by the likes of me, and [i]here's the thing[/i]- the more I learn, they less they want to hear it.  I'm sure Christians are no different.

So I think the first step has to come not from the challenger, but the challenged- they have to want to learn, or we sort of have an obligation to leave them alone.

Absolutely, and I think a religion can withstand that scrutiny quite well. We just have to separate the concepts from the individuals- you and I can discuss the ups and downs of a religion, and there’s no taboos involved, because this is the life we’ve chosen for ourselves. However, my mother likely couldn’t defend her religious beliefs from people here. That’s neither her fault, nor the Church’s fault- she’s simply chosen to do other things with her life besides philosophy.

Again, I respond to this with a question, this time without the smile- what exactly have I been doing for the past five years?  I don't see how it can be argued that there isn't ample criticism for religious belief in the world,  and I don't see how it can be argued that there's isn't ample response. 

We don't teach uneducated convictions.  Anybody who wants to be a well-informed, rational Christian can be, and I've never seen it discouraged.  Uneducated convictions come from people who don't have the interest/ability to pursue that education, but are taught they need to have the conviction [i]anyway[/i].
5

You know I wouldn’t call it a taboo as much as useless. In a voluntary disscussion such as this pace we can challange but, it still can be a useless endeavor. I pretty much see trying to prove or disprove religious convictions as an exercise in patience. A test of verbal gymnanstics. Lots of fun but you get no where fast.

Should religions be held accountable for the crap done in their name? LOL Not legally. spiritually, yes. Why did not Charlie Manson get the chair? He was barely held responsible.

Try getting a multibillion or trillion dollor corporation convicted. Freeze all the assets they have but, then it becomes a religious vendetta and makes them all martyrs. Nope,

You could do a Frank Herbert on them and create a plague, specific to certain genes. Real martyrdom then.

Blasted religions have that martyrdom coin locked up tight. Bust em and you will just make more.

There is your taboo , martyrdom, a fine defensive weapon.

Hmmm, We could infiltrate and overwhelm them from the inside. I nominate you Tent. to go in first I will watch your back from the outside. When its safe whistle, I will send the next brave volunteer in.

6

You big wine-bar Christian you. How is it than I cannot discuss Islam, God, or even evolution freely over here…?

I think Christianity says much of the time “Hey Religiously - I’m wearing the white shirt here - it’s those other red shirts who are the hooligans - I’m just here to enjoy the match.”

You still wear a shirt though.

Oh hang on, this analogy is no good. Football can be proven to exist.

7


Tabula

Can you go into a little more detail on this?

8

Perhaps the taboo has come about as a social practice in America because the constitution says there should be freedom of religion and a separation of church and state. I bet that in other countries and in times pre-American revolution people more freely debated religous beliefs. I’d probably venture to say that in those times people didn’t actually distinguish between religous beliefs and non-religous beliefs.

The question you are raising is whether the taboo is good or bad. Should we lift it, or is it useful to us? It seems to me that it does have use in that it keeps us aware of the principle that gov’t and religion are supposed to be different, and that we should respect people who are different than us. If separation of church and state and freedom of religion are good, then a taboo which helps us to understand this is also good. If you believe that religions are equal and that they need not be challenged than the taboo is also good then too.

The drawbacks of the taboo are what you’re getting at. I don’t really feel like analyzing what they are, but if you tell me what they are then I’ll way them against the good of the taboo and tell you what I think.

9

Ucc,

I truly wish it could work that way, but it seems as if much of the negative output from religion is fostered by this hands-off approach. It would be nice if all would examine their own beliefs and scrutinize how those beliefs function in the communal world, but if you’re taught from birth to not question, what is left than to be challenged from the outside? When confronted by the negative results of ‘unexamined religious beliefs’, rather than feeling obligated to leave them alone, I would think that the obligation is to challenge those beliefs.

What would be wonderful would be the known christians challenging the irrational beliefs within their own dogma, but that happens little or not at all. And even if a well-meaning christian should say that creationism or intelligent design, or the book of Revalation isn’t to be taken literally, they are immediately placed outside and condemned for committing heresy. The ultimate crime is to break the tabboo.

There could be some very good, if uncomfortable, discussions in this forum if we could clear away at least the more obvious irrationalities up to and including the tabboo of discussing religion at all.

Too much of what is discussed here has little to do with religion or spirituality. There is way too much “God is”, “God is not”. Some of this may be coming from a less-than-examined position, but much of it is the tacit understanding that we won’t break the tabboo of challenging those sacred beliefs.

Understand that I use the term religion to include almost everyone. My own beliefs as a heathen are just as vulnerable to reasoned examination as the most devout religious person.

Kris,

Face it. Religion isn’t going to go away. Whatever it is, its seems to be a natural need of most humans. The question lies in its efficacy. Religion can and does do many good things for its followers and we heathens alike, but much misery and violence come from it as well. It isn’t that religion can’t rid itself of the irrationalities, it is the inability to talk about them that is the problem. You’re right in saying that the most common response is martyrdom. To challenge religious beliefs invites those challenged to climb up on the cross and die for those beliefs. Maybe this is good in some situations, but it also prevents any rational discussion.

So you read "White Plague? Chilling, wasn’t it? We’re busy training thousands of people to make that a possibility. Enough disembling…

Thanks for the offer, but going inside would invite lightning or architectual failure. Best I stand outside and wave my signs… :wink:

Tab,

Agreed. ALL religions have the tabboo in place. Islam is perhaps the strongest in this. Rushdie is the prime example of what happens when the tabboo is broken…

10

tentative

It's not about 'working', it's just the way it is. If what you're after is a scheme to eliminate organized religion at all costs, then just say so- I won't have any further comment, I promise.  But as long as we're playing fair, your 'holding religion accountable' only matters for as long as religious people feel like listening to you. That's just how it is.  If you approach a stranger on the street corner and say "Hi, My name is Tentative and I just wanted to let you know that your God doesn't exist and your religion is a sham",  then what kind of response should you expect? What kind do you deserve?  These sorts of dialogs can only really happen among people who agree to participate- and you're absolutely  right, that limits their usefulness, since the problematic folks are often the ones least likely to participate.

Compared to what? In the world I’ve built around myself, it happens constantly. But again, it’s one of those things that has to be agreed on.

In a few circles, and yet not in others. To take those circles and say 'that's how religion is' is a choice that you're making, it's not reality.  I claim all those things you say above, and I've found very little trouble being accepted by Christians- but then, I don't harp on these things unless someone [i]asks me first[/i].

I can’t even think of a religious subject that hasn’t been discussed here, except a few that are too academic to appeal to most visitors. All I can say is, if you feel there are such topics, raise them.

I consider discussions about the nature of God to have a great deal to do with religion and spirituality, but perhaps I’m just strange in that regard.

11

Awww, come on Ucc, You are reading into what I’m saying things that aren’t there. I’m not interested in “destroying” religion, I couldn’t if I tried, but finding more than an is-isn’t dialogue would be useful. I suspect that most people (including me) see much in religion that is beneficial, both to the individual and societies at large, but the demand by religions to accept every last word literally when two thousand years have shown that some (not all) of the words in the holy books do not match up with our current knowing suggests that a reformation is overdue. There are beliefs. But WHY those beliefs? If we can’t allow scrutiny, and I would argue that we haven’t, then religion loses much of its relevance in a world that could use some rational guidance.

You say that almost every facet of religion has been discussed here, but I would say that what has been discussed hasn’t been a real discussion of the under-pinnings of beliefs, but has been primarily the superficial is - is not - is - is not stuff.

My “scheme” isn’t to dismiss religion, but to see if we can’t get past the ‘just the way it is’ part.

SD,

I’m not ignoring you, I’ll get back with a “list” of those things that seem to be inviolate beliefs. It’s beer-thirty here, and I don’t plan on being last to the party… :laughing:

12 
So, then [i]scrutinize[/i] if you want to.  I haven't come into this thread to say that you shouldn't criticize religion, I've come in to explain to you why many people aren't going to appreciate it when you do.  And don't think I'm in any different boat than you are, as I said, there are plenty of religions in the world I would love to scrutinize the hell out of, but I've learned that when I make the attempt, people generally don't want to hear it.  Why? Because of that problem they are stuck on- all people are expected to have some views of religion (and politics, and moral issues), but most people aren't going to study them actively enough to support those views. So when I approach Joe Blow with my 25 cent words and accusations that his Eastern Philosophy is baloney, he will often feel shy and reluctant to talk to me.  If I push it, he'll get combative. 

To what extent is scrutiny disallowed? For the third time I ask you, over the past 5 years (most of which you have been here to witness) what have you seen me doing almost constantly? Has scrutiny not been leveled?  There are more books than 1 person could ever read that do exactly what you call for- defend, accuse, or otherwise examine religion with the exact same rational scrutiny applied to other areas.  It exists, it always has, you've been a part of it yourself for a good long time.  The 'taboo' only exists in polite circles of non-philosophical society, and it's there for good reason. 

I half-agree with this.  I do agree with you that the most basic underpinnings of belief are not discussed here in religion.  But I would go on to say that that's because the underpinnings of religious belief are more properly known as 'epistemology', and we have a department for that just down the hall.  I would also agree with you that epistemology and such things are more interesting and probably more important than arguments over dogma.  To be frank though, that past few times we've talked, you've seemed more interested in social studies than epistemology.  
If you want to talk about the underpinnings of all belief, then you aren't going to be talking about Religion in any way that people can discern, and as such, it won't be getting the scrutiny you're imagining.  Nobody is going to become Catholic (or cease being Catholic) because of a witty deconstruction of classic foundationalism.
13

As you can see in this disscussion a form of martyrdom arises.
The taboo arises even in such a gentle form.

Perhaps it is because beliefs are a part of us. If we had a leg missing we would not want people telling how much better life could be for us with two legs. Or giving us total sympathy making us out to be less human.

Religions seem to be apart of people, the fact that folks are willing to die for it means it is a possesion that is extremely valuable, just like a loved one or land or whatever is worth killing for. When someone dies for a loved one they are a hero. When someone dies for religion they are a martyr and become revered for that.

Attacking such a deep and personal possesion is pretty much like trying to kill someones child.

And yes the “White Plague” was awesomely realistic and too close to the truth. Boy was it a good read. Herbert has always been tops on my list of authors. His kid is just about as good.

White plague shows how simple such a process cn be and how easy to disperse it. Frightening. I just keep hoping I don’t carry genes that have pissed someone off. :laughing:

I think you would be perfect for the pulpit. Just wear a suit of armor. :laughing:

On an off note: the word good/ god / Have you ever made a typo where the one word really can fit just as well as the word you intended? I have noticed it a lot of times. Intend the word good and god is typed and it fits. If you were religious that is. And visa versa (Creepy church music inserted here)

14

Hi Ucc,

I really don’t expect a tremendous amount of enthusiasm from those incapable of examining their own beliefs. I have been amply punished in the past for daring to ask critical questions. For many years it was easier to just shrug and walk away, but things have changed a lot in the last few years, and the fanaticism of religion has reared its ugly head - again. So it seems a small price to be rebuffed for making people uncomfortable than simply waiting to see if a suicide bomber can kill me on his way to paradise. The current Islamic fanatacism isn’t much different than the inquisitions and crusades. Just a different color.

I see it. If I didn’t, you would be on my list of people I have no intention of talking to - and there are a few of them.

Perhaps that is because religion has wide social implications. If religion was a quiet passive phenomenom it wouldn’t be an issue, but societies are being radically changed because of religious fanaticism. Its rather difficult to ignore religion and its social effects.

No illusion about this. Those who choose a head-in-the-sand stance aren’t capable of dialog, only diatribe. And that goes for the uneducated ‘true believer’ as well as the esteemed philosopher who knows nothing but questioning the questions ad nauseum. Epistomology can easily sink its own boat. There is a point where the possible questions of knowing become meaningless. I don’t think we must of necessity take the discussion out of religion, since it is religious beliefs that are at issue - at least for me.

Kris,

Yes, and that is part of the tabboo, and the person(s) who would try to break though that tabboo aren’t going be well recieved. Oh well. :unamused:

Just beware strange letters bearing gifts… :astonished:

15

tentative

Oh, whew. I thought Kriswest was talking about me with that backhanded comment about martyr complexes. I feel better now. :slight_smile:

Anyways, I don’t agree with hardly anything you’re saying about what needs to be done, and what there’s not enough of, and all that. I guess I’m just confused about what it is you’d like to see change- do atheists not have an active enough missionary program, or…? What exactly would it mean to ‘hold religion accountable’, keeping in mind that most people are religious and not philosophically inclined?

16

No, not you specifically unless of course it applies? :wink:

Martyrdom is a way of defense, it is throwing guilt on to another. Much the way mom’s guilt their kids into doing something. Guilt or martyrdom gets the other peson to do exactly what you want whith out you having to go to deep.
Which with religion its purpose is to deflect scrutiny, change the course and block unanswerable questions.

This works for tired moms very well too by the way.

Moms give guilt trips, religion gives martyrdom trips. If you all look closely you all have been doing a bit of it, even Tent… yes you have. shhhhh I am neutral here. :sunglasses: I really think it is matyrdom that makes the polite social taboo. Just as its not polite nor smart to question your mother. Just watch your Dad come uglued at that, he Knows what you are about to unleash.

17

Hi Ucc,

Well, I’m glad you don’t agree with me. It means I can still irritate you. :laughing:

All I would like to see is for religion to begin addressing those beliefs that no longer match up with realities their followers and us heathens live in. If religion is to be a positive force, it might need to re-think its position on creationism, or intelligent design, or any of a number of issues where the accepted understanding of the vast majority of people undermines the credability of religion. I’m not talking about those who are only buying fire insurance, but those who are looking for beliefs that explain the world in ways not at odds with every other form of knowing. Have you ever asked yourself why atheists? Many people reject religion as a life guide because there are too many religious positions that defy reason. Perhaps not the reason of two thousand years ago, but we don’t live two thousand years ago. The earth is only 6000 years old. Whaaaa? Evolution is wrong. The earth and everything in it was created in six days…

The world is evolving at a fast pace, and obviously faster than religion can explain our exploding base of knowledge. On the face of it, the wonder is that there aren’t more atheists if such positions are to be maintained by religion. I realize I have chosen extreme examples, but how extreme? Barely half the population of the U.S. believe evolution is valid. How do we expect religion to help be a positive force in a world with real problems needing real answers?

One doesn’t have to be a philosopher to look at these issues, one only needs to ask who benefits from any particular perspective? The answer just might be no one in certain circumstances. Is religion accountable? Apparently not. That it allows its dogma to become so alienated from any other form of knowing is obvious. I’m in no way suggesting that any other system of belief is perfect. All have weaknesses and shortfalls, but religion could certainly use a bit of reformation if it is to remain viable.

Oh, and don’t worry about Kris, she is an equal opportunity poke you in the ribs person. I’m not sure, but it may be the red hair… :stuck_out_tongue:

18

Whoops, I meant to say I do agree with you, my bad. Better response coming later in the day.

19

You agree with me? Hmmm, I’ll take the 4th off and deliberate. I am obviously doing something wrong… :wink:

20

uhhhm no to the extremism of the above but, not no to the comment about me. You can’t hold religion accountable. Did you think I was totally joking about infiltration? You cannot remove or change or even hold religion acountable. It must be done fom within. To change a thing like belief it must be carefully done over time. The repercussions of a quick change would be hideous beyond belief.

The bronze red hair gives me a distinct advantage in certain religious circles. Add the Brown eyes and I am the boss , Throw in the left handedness and I am inviolate. Yecchhhhh.