jeffma@teklabs.UUCP (06/16/83)
"As usual, someone has misinterpreted an article. Please don't get me wrong. I certainly did not mean not to question your personal beliefs, nor did I mean that one's beliefs could not change over time. What I did mean is that there is no reason on this net or anywhere else to criticize people for what they do or do not believe." "I do mind being made to feel that I am inferior, silly, stupid, etc. due to what I believe." "Part of the problem with religion is that there may not be any rational reason why someone believes what they believe. Therefore, it is hard to talk about that belief in a rational and/or logical way. I remain convinced that this net should be devoted to educational purposes, not to flaming people for their beliefs." Meredith Morris (alias mam) Date: Mon, 13-Jun-83 20:13:24 PDT Article-I.D.: rabbit.1583 I heartily agree, Meredith, that someone has misinterpreted an article. In fact, they've misinterpreted several. I don't know how long you've been following the discussions concerning my original "Plunge" articles, but my purpose has NEVER been "flaming people for their beliefs." You admit yourself that "there may not be any rational reason why someone believes what they believe," and this is exactly the issue I've been addressing. As far as I'm concerned, this falls within the bounds of "educational purposes" which you are convinced net.religion should be devoted to. Perhaps the single most significant thing I've learned from these discussions is that many religious people would rather die than admit that their beliefs are not firmly seated upon rational bases. And I've got news for you, Meredith: it is possible to have beliefs which are, quite simply, WRONG!!!! That's right. Example: if you believed that I was actually a martian in disguise, that belief would be incorrect. If you believed that the standard "argument by design," used by the naive in justifying their believe in the existence in God, is a sound argument, you would be wrong as well. You yourself have accused me of holding an incorrect belief, by implying that I misinterpreted your article. I have been confronted with many FAULTY arguments, and have pointed out their faults. My intent has not been malicious, and my hope was that it would help put people in touch with their actual motives for believing what they believe. If this makes them feel "inferior, silly, stupid" as you suggest, then the problem lies within their own egos. Do you feel "inferior, silly, stupid" when someone points out an error in your reasoning, or do you learn from it? Have you come up with a new method of learning, in which you manage to avoid making any mistakes? The net CANNOT serve an "educational" function unless discussions such as these can take place. I'm not convinced that all net.religion contributors have education in mind (indoctrination, perhaps). I think one of the big problems here is that my criticism of faulty reasoning is being confused with a value judgement directed at the belief itself. This is not the case. You can believe for whatever motive you like. You can even choose not to examine the bases for your beliefs if you like. Whatever turns you on. And, by the way, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have responded. I admire their willingness to engage in discussions of this type, and share with everyone their own motives for believing. Still, this process seems to have left a bad taste in the mouths of many of those who have responded, both to me and others who have chosen to approach the subject critically. We've even seen suggestions that "those atheists/naturalists/materialists" get off net.religion. Given reactions like these, and yours, Meredith, I seriously question the "educational" climate on net.religion. How are we to learn, without discussions such as this? How are we to learn, when any critical assessment of the supposedly rational motivations put forth is denounced as abuse? If we stop exploring the basis for religious beliefs, I'll bet net.religion is going to become either a ghost town, or a "Jerry Falwell Old Time Gospel Hour." No thanks. Which brings me to a suggestion: how many net readers would be interested in starting a new net category, devoted to a critical discussion of controversial beliefs from a rational point of view (net.inquiry)? Then we could leave net.religion to those fountains of wisdom who know everything already, and aren't interested in critically examining their beliefs. Surely there are a few religious folks out there who would be willing to to champion their cause in such an arena? I'm thinking of something a little more "down-to-earth" than net.philosophy, something devoted to the discussion of a wide range of controversial beliefs in addition to religion such as occultism, pseudosciences, medical quackery, etc. Representatives from all persuasions could then join in the fray without fear of having their arguments denounced as "abuse." Those who aren't interested in learning about such stuff could remain blissfully ignorant, while those who participated wouldn't have to put up with faulty arguments. From my experiences on net.misc (i.e. debunking of dowsing, kirlian photography, etc.) there are indeed some intelligent folks out there who simply want to see a "no-nonsense" discussion of such topics. Anybody who reads a newspaper, or watches TV, or is exposed to any public media whatsoever should realize the overwhelming need for critical viewpoints. Even "educationally-minded" folks like Ray Jender and M. Carey could put in their two cents worth, since it was their suggestion to get the "pollution" (i.e. those disgusting heretics who don't believe in God) off net.religion--I would speculate, however, that this sort of forum wouldn't appeal to them (far too dangerous). In fact, I might even be able to get 'ole Larry Bickford to debate me on creationism, since he has explicitly refused to do so on net.misc OR net.religion. The idea has a certain amount of appeal to me. What do you think? Jeff Mayhew Tektronix
mam@rabbit.UUCP (06/18/83)
OK, I think that I owe Jeff and some others a apology. I'm sorry. But I still resent being flamed for what I do or don't believe. And don't get me wrong. I don't mind in the least discussing beliefs, mine and those of other people. I am definitely in favor of talking about beliefs. But I think that maybe we all should be careful about what we write in order to avoid insulting others. Also, we have to find a way to criticize/talk about articles which have been submitted without insulting the submittor(sp?). If that requires taking this discussion to another groups, then let's! I guess it comes down to this. Everyone believes something. There is no way to make a moral judgement about that belief, although you may disagree with it. But if you disagree with someone, then say so and say why. Now let't hear what everyone else thinks. I hear the voices of a few people on this group loud and clear, but what about those of you who just read and don't contribute. We'd like to hear from you, and we will do our best (at least I will) to talk about it without flaming you into cinders. Still apologetic, Meredith Morris
mat@hou5e.UUCP (06/24/83)
Well, someone else wants a place to take the Holy Wars that we have been having out here. Of course, we could all use net.flame (isn't that what it's for?) but perhaps we SHOULD create a net.religion.holy-wars. That we we wouldn't have to listen to all those flamers who couldn't give a good goddam about our wars. But I have seen some intelligent stuff out here lately. We would have to require that anything with CONTENT as opposed to merely heat would have to go somewhere else too. Let's have net.holy-wars (what fun!) Mark Terribile Duke of deNet