The truth of divine intervention is most often validated through the vehicle of miracles. If people did/do not subscribe to such events faiths spanning the world would have to rely on personal feelings of faith alone. Personal conviction may have some power of transmission but certainly falls short compared to tangible eyewitness accounts. There are many miracles worth discussing but since today is the eve of Christmas we are presented with a perfect opportunity to evaluate Immaculate Conception. The main ideas presented in this article come from the works of David Hume, Anatole France and Christopher Hitchens. It is possible for a miracle to occur, but as the following will demonstrate the possibility is bleak. In order for a miracle to withstand sufficient proof, the falsification of the event must be more miraculous then the said event at question (An enquiry concerning Human understanding, Hume). For example is it more likely that Jesus was born of a virgin mother or as Hitchens brings to question is it more likely that a Jewish minx was telling a lie? Again we are simply applying Occam’s razor, with all things equal the simplest explanation is the best. To claim that the natural order of sexual reproduction was suspended only presents more questions. Further, is a miracle a one-time event, or is it possible to have numerous occurrences? Based on the definition, a miracle is: a surprising and welcome event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws. Therefore how many occurrences would it take to lose its surprise, Jesus is not the first deity born of a virgin, he is just one of at least fifteen others that we know of born by the same method. At what point does a virgin birth transform itself from miraculous to common occurrence. In this case a said miracle is in fact occurring more and more frequently. Perhaps then the current physiological model of procreation should be in question and remodeled, if this is accomplished. The stated miracle is dissolved, along with its claim to supernatural intervention.
Canadian Muslims are using Canada’s democratic principles to further their own non-democratic agenda.
Responding to complaints by the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), the Canadian Human Rights...
For two millennia, Christianity has had a lock on December 25, denoting this day as “Christmas”, the celebration of Christ’s birthday. And of course many of us non-Christians, atheists included, do partake of the Christmas traditions.But celebrations of December 25 has pagan origins dating from ancient times. For untold centuries, the winter solstice was marked by celebrations of the time when the Sun finally turned the tide in its battle with night, offering the promise of a return to the long, warm days of Spring and Summer. The Romans called the winter solstice “Sol Invictus”- the Undefeated Sun.
The Romans celebrated the anticipation of the return of Spring -and the birthday of the sun god Mithra- with a festival ending on December 25 (then believed to be the year’s shortest day) called Saturnalia, after the god of agriculture. Saturnalia was a joyous occasion filled with lusty pursuits such as feasting, drinking, and fornication. Certainly a somewhat different event than our present-day fairly sedate, religious, and family-oriented Christmas!
So how did this pagan celebration of the winter solstice get translated into a celebration of Christ’s birth? Christ’s birthdate is not mentioned in the Bible, and is thus unknown. So the early Christian church arbitrarily decided to denote December 25 as Christ’s birthday.
This was a very smart, pre-Madison Avenue PR move by the church. Paganism was a major rival of early Christianity, and the winter solstice was a widespread and beloved occasion for celebration. So the church’s choice of December 25 permitted an entrenched old Pagan tradition to continue, but transformed into a new Christian tradition. And it probably seemed quite natural to transform the universal human joy at the return of the life-giving Sun, into joy at the birth of a Son who was the Saviour of humanity. Thus the Christian church managed to turn bawdy Saturnalia into the pious Christ’s mass, Christmas.
But many of the most beloved trappings of our present-day Christmas celebrations come directly from these age-old pagan winter solstice traditions- the spirit of kindness towards friends and strangers, the wassail punch (very similar to the Roman drink calda), kissing under the mistletoe (from ancient Scandinavia), the Advent Wreath (from the pagan fire wheel symbolizing life), and the age-old Celtic Yule log. And of course our traditional Christmas tree is simply a continuation of an ancient pagan tradition of bringing bits of greenery into the house to celebrate the winter solstice.
So let’s take December 25 back from the Christians, and restore it to its wonderful Pagan traditions. For starters, I offer the modest proposal that we remove the X from Xmas, and rename this day Pmas.
For two millennia, Christianity has had a lock on December 25, denoting this day as “Christmas”, the celebration of Christ’s birthday. And of course many of us non-Christians, atheists included, do partake of the Christmas traditions.But celebrations of December 25 has pagan origins dating from ancient times. For untold centuries, the winter solstice was marked by celebrations of the time when the Sun finally turned the tide in its battle with night, offering the promise of a return to the long, warm days of Spring and Summer. The Romans called the winter solstice “Sol Invictus”- the Undefeated Sun.
The Romans celebrated the anticipation of the return of Spring -and the birthday of the sun god Mithra- with a festival ending on December 25 (then believed to be the year’s shortest day) called Saturnalia, after the god of agriculture. Saturnalia was a joyous occasion filled with lusty pursuits such as feasting, drinking, and fornication. Certainly a somewhat different event than our present-day fairly sedate, religious, and family-oriented Christmas!
So how did this pagan celebration of the winter solstice get translated into a celebration of Christ’s birth? Christ’s birthdate is not mentioned in the Bible, and is thus unknown. So the early Christian church arbitrarily decided to denote December 25 as Christ’s birthday.
This was a very smart, pre-Madison Avenue PR move by the church. Paganism was a major rival of early Christianity, and the winter solstice was a widespread and beloved occasion for celebration. So the church’s choice of December 25 permitted an entrenched old Pagan tradition to continue, but transformed into a new Christian tradition. And it probably seemed quite natural to transform the universal human joy at the return of the life-giving Sun, into joy at the birth of a Son who was the Saviour of humanity. Thus the Christian church managed to turn bawdy Saturnalia into the pious Christ’s mass, Christmas.
But many of the most beloved trappings of our present-day Christmas celebrations come directly from these age-old pagan winter solstice traditions- the spirit of kindness towards friends and strangers, the wassail punch (very similar to the Roman drink calda), kissing under the mistletoe (from ancient Scandinavia), the Advent Wreath (from the pagan fire wheel symbolizing life), and the age-old Celtic Yule log. And of course our traditional Christmas tree is simply a continuation of an ancient pagan tradition of bringing bits of greenery into the house to celebrate the winter solstice.
So let’s take December 25 back from the Christians, and restore it to its wonderful Pagan traditions. For starters, I offer the modest proposal that we remove the X from Xmas, and rename this day Pmas.
"How can you look at this world, at this universe and all its wonder and complexity and imagine that it came about 'by accident'?" Believers have been posing this question for ages, and it respresents the most essential trump card in the deck of dogma. The non-believer is asked, nay, dared to try to explain how something (especially something as big as the universe) can come from nothing. We know of no circumstance during which something spontaneously springs into being from nothingness, thus something must have made the universe. Our response: we do not know how the universe came to be spontaneously. So we have lost, no? We have been thwarted by the most simple, fundamental argument for belief. Not exactly, for the believer has simply moved the argument for first cause back a step. If god made the universe, than what made god? The argument for first cause claims that something simply can not spring from nothing, and in claiming so, disproves the creator it's attempting to validate. Instead of delivering a definitive proof of divine creation, this argument leaves us with an infinite line of creation extending backwards in time: our universe was created by god, who was created by something else, which was created by something else, and so on and so forth. Further, in the process of looking backwards, we fail to see a solution to the original problem, we fail to find a first cause. Further, where is the evidence for the first cause? Is the supposed necessity of a first cause to stand as evidence for its existence? When we look at the universe, we see no clearly expressed purpose for its myriad of parts; we see no signatures or "made by god" stamps; we certainly see no indication that all of this was made for us. Are we to use the thousands of years old religious texts as evidence?; those texts which make no mention of the big bang or the billions of years during which the universe was made only of stars for the heavy elements necessary to form planets had not yet been fused? Any reasonable person looking at the timeline of events should clearly see what has happened: thousands of years ago, when men had no understanding of the universe or its origins, they came up with a story to explain things as best they could, "man makes things, thus something like man, but more powerful made everything else." Since then science has replaced speculation, and our understanding of the universe has increased exponentially. Yet, people are attempting to make the new information fit the original script; it's as though we're trying to fit a million new puzzle pieces into a puzzle which originally fit ten. If we're talking evidence, then the Torah, Bible and Qu'ran have been disproven centuries ago. God supposedly revealed himself to a select few and told them how the universe was made. Yet, the story does not fit reality, and thus those books have been clearly debunked. There are some who have attempted to resolve the inherent flaw of the first cause argument by claiming that the creator is infinite, and therefor exempt from the temporal necessity of first cause. There was a time when scientists appealed to this very argument in explaining the origins of the universe, however the advent of relativity physics revealed that the universe did in fact have a beginning. Unfortunately, general relativity failed to demonstrate that god too had a beginning (not surprising considering that, in the hundreds of years of modern science science has not found one shred of evidence for his existence). Thus proponents of the infinite god pat themselves on the back, happy to have solved the problem of first cause. Unfortunately, they haven't. First of all, we must refer back to the fact that an infinite creator responsible for the big bang is not described by any religious text. Not one creation story, outside of science, describes the big bang, and thus no religion has been validated by this argument. Further one must admit that, since there is no evidence linking a creator of the big bang to the seven-days-creator of the bible, any infinite deity one could imagine would theoretically satisfy the first cause equation. How's this: Father Positive and Mother Negative existed infinitly prior to the inception of the universe. Eventually they decided to copulate, and in the final throws of their passion, the universe exploded forth and all the particles of the universe (all their wee children) were endowed with some variation of their respective charges. This story is clearly ridiculous as it doesn't explain anything about the creators of the universe or their intentions for it, nor does it provide any supporting evidence, but in terms of solving the issue of first cause it works. Here's another story: the first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can change form. Further, another law of physics demonstrates that mass is itself a form of energy. Is it not possible that energy itself is infinite, at at some point in time interacted in such a way as to change form and produce matter? If we are going to speak in terms of infinity, why not apply the concept to something scientifically supported? Why instead must we appeal to a being which we have no direct reason to believe in? Here we are appealing to Occam's razor, the concept that, all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. A divine creator is anything but the simplest solution. The idea raises a myriad of questions: where does the creator reside?; did he create that place too?; why did he create the universe? why create it the way it is? Appealing to the concept of an infinite creator simply creates more questions than it hopes to answer.
"How can you look at this world, at this universe and all its wonder and complexity and imagine that it came about 'by accident'?" Believers have been posing this question for ages, and it respresents the most essential trump card in the deck of dogma. The non-believer is asked, nay, dared to try to explain how something (especially something as big as the universe) can come from nothing. We know of no circumstance during which something spontaneously springs into being from nothingness, thus something must have made the universe. Our response: we do not know how the universe came to be spontaneously. So we have lost, no? We have been thwarted by the most simple, fundamental argument for belief. Not exactly, for the believer has simply moved the argument for first cause back a step. If god made the universe, than what made god? The argument for first cause claims that something simply can not spring from nothing, and in claiming so, disproves the creator it's attempting to validate. Instead of delivering a definitive proof of divine creation, this argument leaves us with an infinite line of creation extending backwards in time: our universe was created by god, who was created by something else, which was created by something else, and so on and so forth. Further, in the process of looking backwards, we fail to see a solution to the original problem, we fail to find a first cause. Further, where is the evidence for the first cause? Is the supposed necessity of a first cause to stand as evidence for its existence? When we look at the universe, we see no clearly expressed purpose for its myriad of parts; we see no signatures or "made by god" stamps; we certainly see no indication that all of this was made for us. Are we to use the thousands of years old religious texts as evidence?; those texts which make no mention of the big bang or the billions of years during which the universe was made only of stars for the heavy elements necessary to form planets had not yet been fused? Any reasonable person looking at the timeline of events should clearly see what has happened: thousands of years ago, when men had no understanding of the universe or its origins, they came up with a story to explain things as best they could, "man makes things, thus something like man, but more powerful made everything else." Since then science has replaced speculation, and our understanding of the universe has increased exponentially. Yet, people are attempting to make the new information fit the original script; it's as though we're trying to fit a million new puzzle pieces into a puzzle which originally fit ten. If we're talking evidence, then the Torah, Bible and Qu'ran have been disproven centuries ago. God supposedly revealed himself to a select few and told them how the universe was made. Yet, the story does not fit reality, and thus those books have been clearly debunked. There are some who have attempted to resolve the inherent flaw of the first cause argument by claiming that the creator is infinite, and therefor exempt from the temporal necessity of first cause. There was a time when scientists appealed to this very argument in explaining the origins of the universe, however the advent of relativity physics revealed that the universe did in fact have a beginning. Unfortunately, general relativity failed to demonstrate that god too had a beginning (not surprising considering that, in the hundreds of years of modern science science has not found one shred of evidence for his existence). Thus proponents of the infinite god pat themselves on the back, happy to have solved the problem of first cause. Unfortunately, they haven't. First of all, we must refer back to the fact that an infinite creator responsible for the big bang is not described by any religious text. Not one creation story, outside of science, describes the big bang, and thus no religion has been validated by this argument. Further one must admit that, since there is no evidence linking a creator of the big bang to the seven-days-creator of the bible, any infinite deity one could imagine would theoretically satisfy the first cause equation. How's this: Father Positive and Mother Negative existed infinitly prior to the inception of the universe. Eventually they decided to copulate, and in the final throws of their passion, the universe exploded forth and all the particles of the universe (all their wee children) were endowed with some variation of their respective charges. This story is clearly ridiculous as it doesn't explain anything about the creators of the universe or their intentions for it, nor does it provide any supporting evidence, but in terms of solving the issue of first cause it works. Here's another story: the first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can change form. Further, another law of physics demonstrates that mass is itself a form of energy. Is it not possible that energy itself is infinite, at at some point in time interacted in such a way as to change form and produce matter? If we are going to speak in terms of infinity, why not apply the concept to something scientifically supported? Why instead must we appeal to a being which we have no direct reason to believe in? Here we are appealing to Occam's razor, the concept that, all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. A divine creator is anything but the simplest solution. The idea raises a myriad of questions: where does the creator reside?; did he create that place too?; why did he create the universe? why create it the way it is? Appealing to the concept of an infinite creator simply creates more questions than it hopes to answer.
Thus far we have focused not so much upon debunking dogma itself, but rather the confidence with which we adhere to our particular creed. This is because the first step in our transitions from believers to realists was taken when we realized that there was no reason to believe in one dogma over another. Our earlier posts should have made it very clear that believers believe in one system over another simply because it is the system in which they were raised; had their life circumstances been different, so too would their beliefs. This sociological perspective can be applied to all belief systems, including science. For example, had one been born prior to the time of Galileo, he would believe the Earth to be the center of the solar system. Believing such would not be his fault, nor would it be foolish or stubborn given scientific understanding of that age. However, he would indeed be mistaken, and if he wished to consider himself a reasonable and intelligent person, he would have to be willing to change his mind once verifiable evidence to the contrary arose. Appealing to the fact that his original line of thinking is most familiar and comfortable does not make those beliefs correct, and reveals him to be a stubborn fool. What we have said thus far should be enough to demonstrate two basic ideas: one must admit that her religious beliefs were determined by factors outside of her control. If she was fortunate enough to have been born to parents who got things right, wonderful. Yet, can she be so naive as to not explore things a bit further in the event they were wrong; we are talking about eternity here. The second concept is the fact that the "live and let live" policy does not apply to religion. All three major monotheisms instruct their followers to murder nonbelievers, and the simplest interpretation of these instructions is the literal one. Therefor, if a peaceful worshipper of one faith is to be tolerant of all others, he must be prepared to be slain in the name of another's god. At this point it is time to engage in the true debunking. We will endeavor to demonstrate the evidence and logic which points in the opposite direction from the shared major tenets of most religions from the soul to the benevolent creator. It should be pointed out that, were one to think they had found a flaw in our upcoming arguments, this would not justify their particular dogma. For example, demonstrating the fact that there is an intelligent creator does not say anything about that creators name, or intentions for us. The Bible does not describe an intelligent designer who created the strong nuclear force that holds all atoms together. It describes a deity that made the Earth in seven days, put two people on it, and then rested. The god of the intelligent design theory is not the god described by that text, and human beings have can not be so arrogant as to update the text without his (and yes, according to the books, it's his not her or its) permission; we'll just have to wait until the creator graciously decides to pay us another visit and explain things in updated language. It should also be mentioned that, were god to come down from heaven and reveal himself to all mankind, call himself Zeus and demand a goat sacrifice at the foot of Mt. Olympus, the writers of this blog would recognize the indisputable evidence and be the first on a plane to Greece with a goat in tow. Would you be with us, or in your respective place of worship praying to your god to say it ain't so?
Thus far we have focused not so much upon debunking dogma itself, but rather the confidence with which we adhere to our particular creed. This is because the first step in our transitions from believers to realists was taken when we realized that there was no reason to believe in one dogma over another. Our earlier posts should have made it very clear that believers believe in one system over another simply because it is the system in which they were raised; had their life circumstances been different, so too would their beliefs. This sociological perspective can be applied to all belief systems, including science. For example, had one been born prior to the time of Galileo, he would believe the Earth to be the center of the solar system. Believing such would not be his fault, nor would it be foolish or stubborn given scientific understanding of that age. However, he would indeed be mistaken, and if he wished to consider himself a reasonable and intelligent person, he would have to be willing to change his mind once verifiable evidence to the contrary arose. Appealing to the fact that his original line of thinking is most familiar and comfortable does not make those beliefs correct, and reveals him to be a stubborn fool. What we have said thus far should be enough to demonstrate two basic ideas: one must admit that her religious beliefs were determined by factors outside of her control. If she was fortunate enough to have been born to parents who got things right, wonderful. Yet, can she be so naive as to not explore things a bit further in the event they were wrong; we are talking about eternity here. The second concept is the fact that the "live and let live" policy does not apply to religion. All three major monotheisms instruct their followers to murder nonbelievers, and the simplest interpretation of these instructions is the literal one. Therefor, if a peaceful worshipper of one faith is to be tolerant of all others, he must be prepared to be slain in the name of another's god. At this point it is time to engage in the true debunking. We will endeavor to demonstrate the evidence and logic which points in the opposite direction from the shared major tenets of most religions from the soul to the benevolent creator. It should be pointed out that, were one to think they had found a flaw in our upcoming arguments, this would not justify their particular dogma. For example, demonstrating the fact that there is an intelligent creator does not say anything about that creators name, or intentions for us. The Bible does not describe an intelligent designer who created the strong nuclear force that holds all atoms together. It describes a deity that made the Earth in seven days, put two people on it, and then rested. The god of the intelligent design theory is not the god described by that text, and human beings have can not be so arrogant as to update the text without his (and yes, according to the books, it's his not her or its) permission; we'll just have to wait until the creator graciously decides to pay us another visit and explain things in updated language. It should also be mentioned that, were god to come down from heaven and reveal himself to all mankind, call himself Zeus and demand a goat sacrifice at the foot of Mt. Olympus, the writers of this blog would recognize the indisputable evidence and be the first on a plane to Greece with a goat in tow. Would you be with us, or in your respective place of worship praying to your god to say it ain't so?
It's been 2 months since my last post! My how time flies. I've just not found much to blog about lately, besides I barley have enough time to read through the 400+ posts a day from the various news feeds. I think PA hammers out around 200+ posts a day itself. Really it's getting quite crazy yesterday I checked my google reader after not logging in for 3 days.... Over 3000 posts where in there. Granted some are dupes, but wow. Anyway, life is going pretty good.. Obviously getting prepared for all the holiday fun. Got a nice long weekend coming up. Looking forward to spending time with the family and maybe getting some home projects done. I think my problem with the blogging thing is the fact that I spend roughly 60hrs a week in front of a pc coding applications. Well, just figured I'd wish everyone a fun filled year end :)
It's been 2 months since my last post! My how time flies. I've just not found much to blog about lately, besides I barley have enough time to read through the 400+ posts a day from the various news feeds. I think PA hammers out around 200+ posts a day itself. Really it's getting quite crazy yesterday I checked my google reader after not logging in for 3 days.... Over 3000 posts where in there. Granted some are dupes, but wow. Anyway, life is going pretty good.. Obviously getting prepared for all the holiday fun. Got a nice long weekend coming up. Looking forward to spending time with the family and maybe getting some home projects done. I think my problem with the blogging thing is the fact that I spend roughly 60hrs a week in front of a pc coding applications. Well, just figured I'd wish everyone a fun filled year end :)
A reply! Of sorts. Unfortunately (in my opinion) the chances of Mr Gravel getting elected are almost nil. However, its important to know there's a candidate with some common sense.
A reply! Of sorts. Unfortunately (in my opinion) the chances of Mr Gravel getting elected are almost nil. However, its important to know there's a candidate with some common sense.
In several of our discussions concerning dogma and religion in general, we have heard one phrase in particular thrown around rather liberally. This saying reflects the notion that "in the face of disagreement we should all still respect each other's beliefs." The question must be asked, what does this familiar phrase actually mean, and in regard to this universal respect, how far does it extend? Let's first look at the meaning of the word respect. Respect can be defined as esteem or admiration for a particular person or thing. Working with this definition, the above phrase compels us to admire all belief systems including which ever one we happen to be disagreeing with at that moment. If this is the case then our present disagreement is clearly at odds with this supposed admiration; as a general principle of reality we don't usually admire that with which we disagree. For example, outlier beliefs are generally both disagreed with and met with anything but admiration. In fact, they are usually quelled by those who hold beliefs which are generally considered to be normal. An example of this would be the beliefs a schizophrenic. We use the term belief, here, for the sake of argument; in reality, these beliefs are generally classified as delusions. The discrepency between these terms illustrates our point: while the schizophrenic himself truly believes in a particular vision or occurence, the outside majority which considers itself and its beliefs "normal," fails to respect the beliefs of said individual. Rather, they relegate his personal belief to the realm of fiction. Still working with the above definition of respect, it is possible that we are asked not to admire the content of one's belief so much as their ability to hold said belief. Referring back to our example of the schizophrenic once more, not only does modern society fail to admire his ability to produce delusions, it also forces him to take medications aimed at preventing the reoccurrence of such beliefs. There is a second definition of respect which applies to the phrase in question. To show respect for something can also mean showing favor or consideration. This would imply that we should show special consideration for the beliefs of others. Functionally it seems as though those who share this sentiment are defending their right and the right of others to hold, express, and not be forced to defend their beliefs. In essence this acts as an insurance policy: you can express your beliefs as long as I can express mine, and neither are wrong. This may be an inherent right of men, however, human society does not work this way. A simple illustration of this reality would be failing an examination, and then explaining to your teacher that in your heart of hearts, you believed all of your wrong answers to be the correct choice. Based upon the premise of respecting all beliefs, that teacher must respect your incorrect answers as highly as she would the correct choices. Further, she is barred from asking for an explanation as to why you chose those particular answers, and from trying to demonstrate to you your fallacy. Although this may excite certain students, it should be clear that such a teaching policy is flawed. A more pertinant analogy goes as follows: let's say you have a sustained a serious laceration that according to all modern medical practice would require sutures. Imagine your ER physician believes that prayer, rather than sutures, are the cure for your wound. Would you respect this belief? Would you hold your tongue rather than challenge his decision? Would you even respect the man who dared express it? The point is this, human societies do not respect any and all beliefs; they establish both what is normal and what is correct and hold their members accountable to believe in reality. Yes, we do have the right to formulate and express our own unique beliefs. However, that does not inherently make them true, nor does it protect them from outside scrutiny. Truthfully, schizophrenic delusions do not reflect reality, certain answers to questions are in fact erroneous, and open wounds require evidence based medical care, and it is okay to say so. We realize that it seems politically correct to respect the views of others, and in a way it is as though we are trying to spare the feelings of those we disagree with. However, the above examples point out a dichotomy between what we do and what we say.
In several of our discussions concerning dogma and religion in general, we have heard one phrase in particular thrown around rather liberally. This saying reflects the notion that "in the face of disagreement we should all still respect each other's beliefs." The question must be asked, what does this familiar phrase actually mean, and in regard to this universal respect, how far does it extend? Let's first look at the meaning of the word respect. Respect can be defined as esteem or admiration for a particular person or thing. Working with this definition, the above phrase compels us to admire all belief systems including which ever one we happen to be disagreeing with at that moment. If this is the case then our present disagreement is clearly at odds with this supposed admiration; as a general principle of reality we don't usually admire that with which we disagree. For example, outlier beliefs are generally both disagreed with and met with anything but admiration. In fact, they are usually quelled by those who hold beliefs which are generally considered to be normal. An example of this would be the beliefs a schizophrenic. We use the term belief, here, for the sake of argument; in reality, these beliefs are generally classified as delusions. The discrepency between these terms illustrates our point: while the schizophrenic himself truly believes in a particular vision or occurence, the outside majority which considers itself and its beliefs "normal," fails to respect the beliefs of said individual. Rather, they relegate his personal belief to the realm of fiction. Still working with the above definition of respect, it is possible that we are asked not to admire the content of one's belief so much as their ability to hold said belief. Referring back to our example of the schizophrenic once more, not only does modern society fail to admire his ability to produce delusions, it also forces him to take medications aimed at preventing the reoccurrence of such beliefs. There is a second definition of respect which applies to the phrase in question. To show respect for something can also mean showing favor or consideration. This would imply that we should show special consideration for the beliefs of others. Functionally it seems as though those who share this sentiment are defending their right and the right of others to hold, express, and not be forced to defend their beliefs. In essence this acts as an insurance policy: you can express your beliefs as long as I can express mine, and neither are wrong. This may be an inherent right of men, however, human society does not work this way. A simple illustration of this reality would be failing an examination, and then explaining to your teacher that in your heart of hearts, you believed all of your wrong answers to be the correct choice. Based upon the premise of respecting all beliefs, that teacher must respect your incorrect answers as highly as she would the correct choices. Further, she is barred from asking for an explanation as to why you chose those particular answers, and from trying to demonstrate to you your fallacy. Although this may excite certain students, it should be clear that such a teaching policy is flawed. A more pertinant analogy goes as follows: let's say you have a sustained a serious laceration that according to all modern medical practice would require sutures. Imagine your ER physician believes that prayer, rather than sutures, are the cure for your wound. Would you respect this belief? Would you hold your tongue rather than challenge his decision? Would you even respect the man who dared express it? The point is this, human societies do not respect any and all beliefs; they establish both what is normal and what is correct and hold their members accountable to believe in reality. Yes, we do have the right to formulate and express our own unique beliefs. However, that does not inherently make them true, nor does it protect them from outside scrutiny. Truthfully, schizophrenic delusions do not reflect reality, certain answers to questions are in fact erroneous, and open wounds require evidence based medical care, and it is okay to say so. We realize that it seems politically correct to respect the views of others, and in a way it is as though we are trying to spare the feelings of those we disagree with. However, the above examples point out a dichotomy between what we do and what we say.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
