Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
But as you yourself recognize, it's not religion itself but whatever doctrines may be included, that has potential for harm.
|
That is _one_ mediation point sure - happy to acknowledge that. But religion in and of itself tends to be an evidence devoid world view that does not map onto reality. And as I said I _also_ think the potential form harm goes up in proportion to how much a belief or set of beliefs are divorced from the reality in which they are found.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
So personally I think it's very misleading (of your own views as well as of what we should think about "religion") to say that "religion is harmful" when that's not really what you mean.
|
Except it is what I mean.
This might work better if you allow me to tell you what I mean rather than have you tell me what I mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I wouldn't call it harmful either.
|
Perhaps you wouldnt but you not doing it does not negate correct usage. Cancer is harmful. Things known to cause cancer are harmful. Therefore it is linguistically correct to call Bacon harmful. But in that context we are referring to it's _potential_ for harm. In that someone like me could eat it every week for their entire life and be fine. Someone else might only eat a small amount of it and not be.
This is what we mean when we say religion is harmful. Yet my doting lovely little Aunt in Scotland who is the second most religious person I know (my nutjob of a fundamentalist neighbour being the most religious person I know) all her life - has in no way experienced any harm from it and I doubt she ever will.
But religion does cause harm at individual and global levels. The divisions caused between religions - or even between adherents of variations on the same religions - in our world are an example of this. The parents who watched and allowed their own children to die of relatively treatable illnesses for purely and solely religious reasons - are an example of this. The hindrance of useful and beneficial scientific progress because of messed up and otherwise unjustifiable religious nonsense such as with stem cell research is an example of this.
Religion _is_ harmful precisely because there is no evidence for it's core claims and it is divorced from the reality in which it resides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Nor would I (and I realize I'm in the minority here) call it "unhealthy" in most contexts. All of this is to pass judgment and imply that one should not eat this or believe that.
|
Except I made no such implication. Exactly the opposite in fact in that I explicit said I would continue to eat it. So not only did I not imply it - I explicitly stated the opposite of it. So it is weird to have my view summarized back at me as being a mere implication of the exact opposite of what was explicit in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Except that there is quite a movement going on against religion right now, if only in pop culture, making it somewhat more irresponsible to say "religion is harmful" than "bacon is unhealthy".
|
I think it very responsible to say both - and how responsible it is even goes up in proportion to how clear you are about what you are saying and why you are saying it. Bacon as a Class A carcinogen _is_ unhealthy relative to foods that are not class A carcinogens for example. It is very responsible to say that. What was not responsible _at all_ are the news media who misrepresented what that actually means - where we had shock click bait misleading headlines likening the danger of bacon to that of cigarettes. That was wantonly irresponsible of them.
Similarly world views divorced from reality are harmful and unhealthy in many ways relative to world views that are not. There is nothing irresponsible at all from pointing that out. It is not responsible however to misrepresent what that means or to not be clear what one means when one is saying it. Which is why I am always clear - like here today - what I mean by it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
That can't be it, because many of them make claims without evidence.
|
So? The two are not mutually exclusive even a little - let alone to the point of "cant be" as you claim. It is perfectly possible to be in principle against claims without evidence while mistakenly making some of your own. Nothing at all precludes that.
So if you see someone making a claim without evidence by all means pull them up on it. That is not my problem. Take it up with them. If you see _me_ making a claim without evidence - by all means let me know. You yourself made quite a few claims without evidence in the past and I in turn pulled you up on them. No evidence came. This is a _good_ thing. It is how conversation should work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
How are you defining "evidence" here?
|
Anything that suggests a claim is actually true. I will leave it to the people claiming there is a god to actually define what they think is evidence for their god however. Then we can evaluate that openly.