Far too subtle for here. ;) :D

I always find it kind of interesting when people say things like "I have no problem with your religion, as long as you don't force your beliefs on others." What it really seems to say is "Believe what you want, but don't tell people about it or try to convince them of its truth, because it inconveniences me."

I'm not a fan of religion, but on the small scale, I don't care what people believe or how they choose to express it. If the guy sitting next to me wants to try to convince me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, then so be it. It may be annoying, but something that doesn't exist or have any measurable effects is no threat to me. I only reserve the right to say something back or to end the discussion.

Sorry, but no.

When someone proselytizes for their religion, he is telling the targets of their efforts, "You are wrong and I am right!" That is rude and very, very disrespectful. Unless someone asks, please keep your religious beliefs to yourself. It has nothing to do with avoiding "inconvenience," and everything to do with avoiding offensive and discourteous disrespect.

I couldn't care less what YOU think is religious truth, just as you couldn't care less what I think is religious truth. The difference between us is I would never presume to demand that you consider my views and disregard your own.

Neither do I. Just leave me out of it and, under no circumstances, attempt to invest those beliefs with the force of law.

If someone wants to pray in lounge, they should go for it. Just don't be too noisy or disruptive, as with any other activity in a lounge.

If the guy next to wants to try to convince that the FSM is real (and, by the way, the FSM is very real), he should keep his big mouth shut unless I invite him to discuss it with me.

That's right -- it's very annoying. And rude and disrespectful and arrogant.

The beliefs have no effect on me. The rampant discourtesy and arrogance in proselytizing for them very much has an effect on me and, moreover, given my ethnic background, is associated with compulsion and persecution of the most malevolent kind. If your religion works for you, great! I'm glad. If you believe your religion should work for me AND you believe you have a divine mandate to convince me of that, please, and I say this in the nicest way possible, [Edited by Moderator per FT Rules.]

Discussions are voluntary. If you don't secure my consent to a discussion, then please see above before proceeding.

I think that we pretty much agree on everything except the point above.

Barring "discussions" involving personal insults, physical threats, etc..., I don't see the difference between exchanging ideas regarding religion versus ideas regarding, say, science or academia. Why is it perfectly fine to discuss (and advance) theories on the orbit of planets but offensive and disrespectful to discuss (and advance) the possible existence of divine spaghetti? Both topics involve ideas that have a well-defined truth value (i.e. true or false, or if you wish, right or wrong) and concern the human understanding of reality. In the former case, people had a lot of wrong ideas about how the planets moved, but in the end, they had to write it off and try to look for the correct description. Restricting discussion about it (either through authority or plain complacency) only stagnated the area.

First, "exchange," involves mutuality and reciprocity. I have absolutely zero interest in hearing why you think your religious beliefs are right and mine (which you don't even know) are wrong. If I want to know your thoughts on religion I'll ask. Don't worry, though -- I won't be asking.

There are contexts in which discussing religious belief is completely appropriate. When I was in India, I asked my Hindu guide if he could to tell me why Ganeesh has the head of an elephant. That discussion led into a broader discussion about Hindu belief, which was fascinating. I've had similar discussions with priests and nuns when visiting the great catherdrals of Europe. There is, however, a world of difference between this, and someone who feels compelled to "share the good news" with me, whether I want to or not.

Because science is objective and religion is not. Because science is verifiable and religion is not. Because science doesn't have "sides" and is not a matter of "belief." If you tell me that planetary orbits are elliptical, contrary to my contention that they are round, your are right and I am wrong, and that can be demonstrated objectively. On the other hand if you tell me that your version of an invisible man in the sky is right and mine is wrong, there is no objectivity involved, our respective beliefs don't matter one iota, and your "correction" of my "error" is insulting.

Religion has no truth value whatsoever. You can't prove your beliefs are true any more than I can prove their false. So just keep them to yourself, because I have no interest in someone who is so arrogant as to insist that I abandon my beliefs about the unknowable for their beliefs about the unknowable. Belief is the antithesis of knowledge; religious belief is the antithesis of fact.

You can pray, or wear special clothes, or say special words, or do whatever you want in the expression of your religious beliefs. If I want to know why you're doing this, I'll ask. Do not have the temerity to approach me and tell me why I should pray, or wear special clothes, or say special words.

I'm sorry -- what note?

I just wanted to comment on this point. (I think that we almost completely agree otherwise.)

There are claims from all over that religious behaviour has an effect on the physical world. (Some generic examples: "If I do X, then the FSM will grant me Y"; or "In fifty years, the FSM will appear and reward pasta lovers"; etc...) In this setting, religion is testable. Either the effect exists or it doesn't, and if it does, you can try to find its cause. There is a clear truth value.

On the other extreme, a sole statement like "FSM exists" is indeed untestable. You can still explain to someone believing this the error in reasoning and show examples of how it is on the same footing as the Celestial Teapot. It proves, as you said, a person simply cannot know that such things exist; the position is untenable.


On the whole, it's certainly up to you how you want to deal with proselytising - I have nothing against you in any case. I suppose I would find it a little insulting to my intelligence if someone were doing it to scam me somehow (e.g. joining a cult and giving them money and property). However, it seems to me that some people just don't know any better, so I cut them some slack and try to at least have a talk with them and try to provide some education, if I have some time. I find nothing about the latter situation offensive or threatening, although it is absolutely annoying and inconvenient.


I hope I'm not jumping the gun, but I think our moderator was just referring to a part of your post that he edited out. This:

Yeah, but naming names would get me a time out. :)

Mike

there is a religious rite that drives me crazy. when 300 people get of the big plane, and have to come into the men's room to wash their feet. takes a lot of time, and completely blocks the toilets and wash basins. best to find a wastebasket.

equally bad, although i do not think it to be a religious rite, is when the super jet arrives from india, with close to 600 females that will not use the plane latrines. all latrines(M&F) are blocked while 600 girls tinkle. best to find a wastebasket.

Let's just take it as a given that religion is a non-falsifiable hypothesis. That being said, it's not incompatible that someone can have a rationalist perspective on science but a theological viewpoint on the "mysteries of existence." People believe all kinds of paradoxes, every day. The concept that the two are incompatible is itself (at least historically) a theistic idea, not a scientific one. Science would simply say "there's no empirical evidence to support your theory" without attaching a value judgment. So, maybe its a good idea to cut a theist a break, and maybe not attach a value judgment to proselytizing? Sometimes a "sorry, I'm a _____" statement and letting it go is enough...just don't say you are an agnostic :)

On the flip side, I got to see some of the quest for the fullerine from a fly on the wall perspective, and I have to tell you, scientists also work from a perspective of non-falsifiable hypotheses, mysticism, wishful thinking, and outright lies to bring people to their point of view. The patina of objectivity sometimes doesn't hide the fact that people are people and even if their method is clean they are often motivated by irrational thoughts.

First of all, I said nothing about religious belief and science being incompatible. Until science can explain everything, it's not incompatible with religious belief that is used to fill in the cracks. I have no idea why you've responded to an argument that I haven't made.

Second, proselytizing has nothing to do with science vs. fact, but with simple courtesy and respect, which is what I was writing about in my post that you quoted. As religious belief is not provable (which is different than non-falsifiable -- religious beliefs have been falsified by objective proof for as long as there have been religious beliefs, see, e.g. Galileo) everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, telling someone else that their opinion is wrong, based solely and exclusively on your own unprovable and entirely subjective opinion is arrogant, rude and disrespectful.

My religious beliefs are none of your business. And, unless I specifically ask you, your religious beliefs are of absolutely no interest to me.

Then you obviously know nothing about science, or the scientific method.

As I said, it is clear that you are unfamiliar with science and scientific methodology.

Actually, I'm quite familiar with the scientific method, my bona fides on that aren't in question, and I wasn't attacking your beliefs. I was just offering another perspective, neither for nor against your opinion. In fact, I don't think my comments even constituted an "argument" for or against anything. The fact that scientists are motivated by the same fallibilities as everyone else is not in dispute, unless your argument is that they aren't part of the human species.

The question isn't what motivates scientists, but proselytizing is rude. If you're familiar with the scientific method then you know that, irrespective of a scientist's motivations, all that counts is methodology and whether results are verifiable and repeatable.

I find proselytizing particularly obnoxious for the reasons that I stated, and I don't think it's inherent in the human character to do so. I think that the adherents of those religions most inclined to engage in proselytizing do so, not out of any true sense of altruism, but because they believe they have a divine mandate, and that kind of religious imperialism is not only offensive, it's actually dangerous, as history as proven repeatedly.

I agree with the first statement. The second statement I would disagree with partially, I agree it's rude, that's why I personally abstain. I was just suggesting that its good for human relations to chill a little when someone gets up in your grill.

I was thinking your initial reaction was a question of terminology. Let me be clear, when I say something is a "non-falsifiable hypothesis" a hypothesis is a truth statement. It is a statement that there exists evidence that will prove the hypothesis true. The contrapositive must also be true, that there must also exist evidence that will prove the statement false. A statement is non-falsifiable when there is no evidence that will prove the contrapositive.

Creationism is a good example, creationists only consider evidence that will support their hypothesis that God snapped his fingers and created everything instantaneously. They will abandon specific theories and arguments when confronted with proof, but the central theory cannot be falsified, thus the hypothesis of creationism is non-falsifiable. This is how you separate logic from rhetoric. And yes, me and my pastor get into all manner of spirited debates on this issue.

Mutual respect is good for human relations. Not coming from a Christian background, I don't hold with the uniquely Christian idea of, "turn the other cheek." No thanks. Treat me with respect and I'll treat you with respect. Treat me with discourtesy and disrespect and expect to be called out for it (I'm not talking about you, specifically, but people in general).

I was unaware you were using a term of art. I thought it was merely a variation on the rather tired attempt of some religionists who insist that those who don't accept their beliefs justify their positions by proving a negative.

However, we were not discussing either logic or rhetoric, but science vs. religious belief. Sophistry is a rhetorical trick and has nothing to do with science.