My answers in blockquote.

paindore asked:

Hi,

In regards to my last question, you say that

¨There are things that are true and things that are false and it is obvious that not all claims can be right at the same time. If we care for reality and what is actually true then it is unavoidable to recognize that there is no way we can reconcile all the self contradicting beliefs people hold. That is why education on the need for evidence, facts, logic and reason to support beliefs is paramount.¨ which I tend to disagree with especially considering this reality composed of different belief systems which also imply cultural repercussions.

Reality is not dependent on particular belief systems. For example gravity will still work even if your personal belief systems rejects it. Just ask such a person to leave an office building via the 5th floor window instead of the first floor door. I can assure you the personal beliefs of such a person would immediately conform themselves to reality and not the other way around.

Reality, truth, and falsity are concepts that vary especially in a cultural context. For example, your truth (scientific truth) may not exist in certain Inuit populations in which Animism, an irrational system according to your definition of rationality, is truth and doesn’t necessarily get in the way of them surviving or living life.

Just because a belief does not have any negative repercussions you can identify does not make the belief true. Scientific truth (is there any other?) is just a description of reality. A description of the universe that surrounds us.

If there are problems, coming in with an education as unfamiliar as science (in the Inuit context) does not guarantee any type of ¨progression¨ (whatever that means)..

Let me give you an example of progress. Vaccines, medications, surgery, hospitals, and x-rays. In summary, modern medicine. Thank you science. Thank you systematic study, analysis and application of evidence supported facts.

It’s almost like a new sort of colonialism (I’m mostly applying this to non-Judeo/Christian religions) where anything other than science is false and should be changed/eradicated for human ¨progression¨.

No one is advocating the forceful eradication of evidence lacking ideas (religion being one of those for example). Education is the driving force, showing how not all ideas are equally likely, useful or true. I suggest you look up what colonialism was and how it was implemented first before trying to make a comparison.

The early anti-foot binding and fgm (female genital mutilation) campaigns are great examples that probably better explain what I’m trying to say.

We have health (i.e. scientific), moral, and ethical reasons for opposing both practices. Such have nothing to do with particular cultural interpretation of what is true. The aforementioned would still be wrong even if humanity as a whole had a belief to the contrary. I suggest you check out Sam Harris book “The Moral Landscape”.

Thanks again

Thank you for asking.

Take care.
In reason:
-FA

-Paul Claudel.

You’ve probably seen this quote before, but it stands true. Religion is highly regarded partly because an argument -however ridiculous- any believer can make starts with, “Well millions of people follow it, so why shouldn’t I?” The fact of the matter is, that strength in numbers, is not always strength, but the naivety to follow a crowd, instead of walking a new path. There are no questions, only statements repeated and reinforced by the masses that echo their teachings. When people begin to question with the intentions of pursuing a logical answer, will truth not be held by the population, but by those strong enough to defy them.

Submitted by havingneweyes