Quebec will now ban street prayers as the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) “super-minister” of identity, Jean-François Roberge, has just passed his bill to strengthen secularism.
Is it though ? I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others.
That’s literally the opposite. In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.
So yeah maybe this would be for the best.
This isn’t even secularism. Secularism would ban anyone from doing these activities in an official capacity, or public funds from being used for these purposes.
Banning individuals from religious expression is not secularism. That’s the state imposing religious persuasion (or lackthereof).
And you said this:
Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions.
And now you’re trying to backtrack by claiming this:
I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others.
No, I distinguished quite plainly between public institutions and individuals in my first comment. You dug in your heels that we shouldn’t just ban public institutions from forcing one set of beliefs on others, but that we should also force individuals to give up their own beliefs (thus, “ending religions,” in your words).
The thing is, any attempt to systemically force people as individuals to give up their beliefs, is literally “institutions forcing their beliefs on others.” So, no, you’re just doing mental gymnastics to rationalize your own prejudice.
Also,
In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.
Would you? Well, where do we draw the line? You realize science hasn’t plumbed the depths of understanding the universe yet, right? Some things are still theoretical. Can we call those things “reality and science,” or are they mere belief until proven beyond reasonable doubt?
For instance, is quantum gravity theory just religious mumbo jumbo? What about string theory? What about unified field theory? Hell, what about the big bang theory, the big crunch theory, and any speculation about dark matter and dark energy, or the origins of life and consciousness?
Who gets to determine what constitutes “science and reality,” and what constitutes “religion and belief,” particularly in these edge cases where there is no general consensus? The publishers of the journals? The peer review board? The dean of faculty for the science department at such-and-such big-name university? The administration of that university, who get to determine who keeps their job as dean of faculty? The board-of-trustees?
Academic freedom is already coming under fire in this political environment, and gatekeeping has always been a problem in academia besides. Do you really want to promote state-mandated and enforced worldviews based on some vaguely defined “reality”? Reality has always been a consensus, and nothing more.
How much further would it go? The social sciences? The humanities? All the subjects where “reality” can’t be simply boiled down to a set of quantifiable data?
Because this would go a lot further than just banning religions. And even if that was all it would do, I would still be against it, even though I’m not religious, because forcing people to adopt my worldview is no better than when religious people do the same thing.
Your need to justify your own beliefs are blinding you. A wall of text arguing semantics… you agree with the far right in USA that is rooting their system in Christianity? Or you agree that because of birthright via your mother you are superior to me?
I’m also pretty confident that doubts and theories in science are unrelated to mysticism. If only in intents.
My guy, they just laid out your argument and demonstrated the particular flaws in your reasoning. What you’re describing isn’t secularism, it’s wishing the state would enforce your particular world view.
Guess what? Removing religious mysticism from the equation doesn’t make that viable or ethical. They already tried this during the French Revolution and it sucked. Giving the state powers to attack nebulous things like metaphysical beliefs is reverting back to the problems we had for thousands of years under Popes and Kings and Caliphs and Emperors.
So much projection and deflection in two short paragraphs, and yet you dismiss all of my (valid and factual) arguments as “a wall of text rooted in semantics” without even attempting to engage honestly with a single thing that I said? Bold strategy, let’s see if it pays off for you…
Your need to justify your own beliefs are blinding you.
I’m not the one attempting to justify my beliefs, you are. My argument here from the start is that institutions shouldn’t enforce beliefs or worldviews, and that individuals should maintain their rights to religious expression.
You’re the only one here arguing otherwise, claiming that we should enforce one set of beliefs because it’s the one that you hold, that everyone who holds other beliefs should be forced to give them up because you don’t agree with them.
you agree with the far right in USA that is rooting their system in Christianity?
Not even a little bit. Holy strawman. They’re attempting a religious theocracy, which by definition involves public institutions enforcing one religion. That’s the opposite of what I’ve been saying from the start.
Or you agree that because of birthright via your mother you are superior to me?
Another strawan. Who the fuck said anything about a “birthright”?!? When did I claim in any way that I’m superior? At what point did anyone mention my mother?
You’re the only one here trying to grant yourself exceptionalism, pretending you’re superior to others. Never in a million years would I agree that you should be the sole arbiter of what everyone else gets to believe.
À belief isn’t rooted in reality. It is a concept close to religions, relying on faith rather than evidence. Are you close to religion yourself maybe?
I’m calling from being responsible and to stop the cancer that are religions. The good it once brought is now inferior to the atrocities it sustains so it is time to call for its end.
That is the stands I take. Nothing related to beliefs.
Do you not realize how much “belief” is in science?
Someone believed in the Higgs Boson before it was proven.
We still today believe in the big bang theory, not because it’s been proven, but because there’s a consensus that says it’s the most plausible explanation.
Science still doesn’t tell us even what to believe regarding the origins of life and consciousness.
We believe in dark matter and dark energy, not because they’ve been directly observed, but because they’re the best possible explanations that we have at this time for certain phenomena that we believe to be their effects.
We believe that there must be some overarching principles that can unite the formulas of quantum physics and general relativity, but no one knows what they are.
Often in medicine, decisions are made based on what the doctors believe, even when there isn’t 100% certainty.
So stop pretending there’s no such thing as belief in science, because there absolutely is.
Someone believed in the Higgs Boson before it was proven.
Because there was evidence of its existence, in the form of occasional (but detectable) interactions between particles that produced unexpected results. No one thought the Higgs Boson existed until there was a scientific reason for its existence. If this is what you’re referring to as “belief in science”, then we’re dealing with multiple definitions of the word “belief”, because that’s nowhere close to how it works in religion.
That doesn’t change the fact that until it had been demonstrably proven, it was still within the realm of belief rather than fact.
I’m sure the first people to conceive of the idea of a god had reasons for believing too. The stars in the night sky, the light in the eyes of their first child, the scent of blossoms on a gentle spring breeze, the taste of fresh fruit in summer. How do you explain those things before you understand atoms and molecules and photons?
Isaac Newton had reasons to believe in his model of physics. And for many years, they were the best explanations for the way things behave the way they do. Until it wasn’t.
Now that we know about general relativity, does that change the fact that Newtonian physics were science?
None of this matters, really. At least it’s not pertinent to the subject. Because no matter how you look at it, it doesn’t justify forcing your worldview and beliefs on others. And that’s what this whole conversation has been about.
That doesn’t change the fact that until it had been demonstrably proven, it was still within the realm of belief rather than fact.
Again, in science, the “realm of belief” is something different than the “realm of belief” for religion. If you can’t acknowledge that, I can’t assume you’re approaching this conversation in good faith.
I’m sure the first people to conceive of the idea of a god had reasons for believing too. The stars in the night sky, the light in the eyes of their first child… How do you explain those things before you understand atoms and molecules and photons?
So, that’s actually the difference I’m talking about. In science, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you say is “huh, I don’t know the answer to that”. You don’t claim you know the answer to those questions until you actually know the answer. But by using rational, critical thought, evidence, and carrying out the scientific method, you figure out those answers, piece by piece. In religion, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you do is make up an answer based on unprovable, unobservable supernatural forces, and then that’s basically the end of it. Is the difference clear yet?
Isaac Newton had reasons to believe in his model of physics. And for many years, they were the best explanations for the way things behave the way they do. Until it wasn’t.
Right, he “believed” in his model because of evidence, observation, rational and critical thought, and the scientific method. His model was superseded when we were able to make better observations, and saw unexpected things in certain cases that didn’t match his predictions. That clued us in that his model wasn’t quite right, and there must be a piece missing. People went looking for that piece and found relativity, which has proven to be an even more accurate model than Newton’s.
Now that we know about general relativity, does that change the fact that Newtonian physics were science?
Of course not, and the fact that you’re even asking shows you have a deeply flawed understanding of science (or are not engaging honestly). Religion is largely constant. Science is very much not. Religion is constant because it fabricates the answers and then stops. Science changes because it leaves room to say “I don’t know”, and has well-defined mechanisms for filling those gaps with good, rational answers, as well as improving upon or even replacing those answers when we learn better. In that way, the “belief” in religion is nothing like the “belief” in science.
None of this matters, really. At least it’s not pertinent to the subject. Because no matter how you look at it, it doesn’t justify forcing your worldview and beliefs on others. And that’s what this whole conversation has been about.
It may not be directly pertinent to the main point, but it does absolutely matter. Understanding the differences between religion and science is paramount if you’re going to argue about them, and I hope this has given you (and anyone else who reads it) some food for thought.
I purposely avoided bringing science in this. You did to match your own narrative. No need for science when everywhere around us, plainly visible, religions are causing wars and sufferings.
You purposely avoided an angle which plainly shows the error of your assertions? And you’re accusing me of “matching my own narrative” when I show those errors with that angle which you ostensibly avoided?
Also, these are your literal words:
In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.
So no, you didn’t avoid bringing science into this.
Also:
No need for science when everywhere around us, plainly visible, religions are causing wars and sufferings.
Bold words for someone trying to rationalize forcing your worldview on others by claiming it’s scientific and therefore deserves an exception from the “don’t force your worldview on others” rule…
Have you considered competing in the Olympics? Because those are some impressive mental gymnastics…
Heyaaaa now you’re using fallacies :) I’ll gladly go for olympics if there was a fitting discipline yes.
By all means keep defending Rhodes antiquated systems that promote abuse and suffering. I know where we both stand and it suffice to me; you’re never going to change my views on that.
So… quantum gravity theory, string theory, unified field theory, big bang theory, big crunch theory, and dark matter/dark energy are all beliefs then and in your opinion should therefore be banned?
Those are a tad further than opinions and feelings I suspect. And also are absolutely unrelated to how religions are generating suffering and should be abolished.
Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions.
So in other words, forcing your worldview on others because you don’t agree with theirs?
That’s no better than forced conversions…
Is it though ? I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others. That’s literally the opposite. In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism. So yeah maybe this would be for the best.
Let’s recap.
Literally, what I said was this:
And you said this:
And now you’re trying to backtrack by claiming this:
No, I distinguished quite plainly between public institutions and individuals in my first comment. You dug in your heels that we shouldn’t just ban public institutions from forcing one set of beliefs on others, but that we should also force individuals to give up their own beliefs (thus, “ending religions,” in your words).
The thing is, any attempt to systemically force people as individuals to give up their beliefs, is literally “institutions forcing their beliefs on others.” So, no, you’re just doing mental gymnastics to rationalize your own prejudice.
Also,
Would you? Well, where do we draw the line? You realize science hasn’t plumbed the depths of understanding the universe yet, right? Some things are still theoretical. Can we call those things “reality and science,” or are they mere belief until proven beyond reasonable doubt?
For instance, is quantum gravity theory just religious mumbo jumbo? What about string theory? What about unified field theory? Hell, what about the big bang theory, the big crunch theory, and any speculation about dark matter and dark energy, or the origins of life and consciousness?
Who gets to determine what constitutes “science and reality,” and what constitutes “religion and belief,” particularly in these edge cases where there is no general consensus? The publishers of the journals? The peer review board? The dean of faculty for the science department at such-and-such big-name university? The administration of that university, who get to determine who keeps their job as dean of faculty? The board-of-trustees?
Academic freedom is already coming under fire in this political environment, and gatekeeping has always been a problem in academia besides. Do you really want to promote state-mandated and enforced worldviews based on some vaguely defined “reality”? Reality has always been a consensus, and nothing more.
How much further would it go? The social sciences? The humanities? All the subjects where “reality” can’t be simply boiled down to a set of quantifiable data?
Because this would go a lot further than just banning religions. And even if that was all it would do, I would still be against it, even though I’m not religious, because forcing people to adopt my worldview is no better than when religious people do the same thing.
Your need to justify your own beliefs are blinding you. A wall of text arguing semantics… you agree with the far right in USA that is rooting their system in Christianity? Or you agree that because of birthright via your mother you are superior to me?
I’m also pretty confident that doubts and theories in science are unrelated to mysticism. If only in intents.
“Semantics”
My guy, they just laid out your argument and demonstrated the particular flaws in your reasoning. What you’re describing isn’t secularism, it’s wishing the state would enforce your particular world view.
Guess what? Removing religious mysticism from the equation doesn’t make that viable or ethical. They already tried this during the French Revolution and it sucked. Giving the state powers to attack nebulous things like metaphysical beliefs is reverting back to the problems we had for thousands of years under Popes and Kings and Caliphs and Emperors.
So much projection and deflection in two short paragraphs, and yet you dismiss all of my (valid and factual) arguments as “a wall of text rooted in semantics” without even attempting to engage honestly with a single thing that I said? Bold strategy, let’s see if it pays off for you…
I’m not the one attempting to justify my beliefs, you are. My argument here from the start is that institutions shouldn’t enforce beliefs or worldviews, and that individuals should maintain their rights to religious expression.
You’re the only one here arguing otherwise, claiming that we should enforce one set of beliefs because it’s the one that you hold, that everyone who holds other beliefs should be forced to give them up because you don’t agree with them.
Not even a little bit. Holy strawman. They’re attempting a religious theocracy, which by definition involves public institutions enforcing one religion. That’s the opposite of what I’ve been saying from the start.
Another strawan. Who the fuck said anything about a “birthright”?!? When did I claim in any way that I’m superior? At what point did anyone mention my mother?
You’re the only one here trying to grant yourself exceptionalism, pretending you’re superior to others. Never in a million years would I agree that you should be the sole arbiter of what everyone else gets to believe.
That is your personal belief. You are advocating to force it onto others who do not share it. How is that different from forced conversion?
À belief isn’t rooted in reality. It is a concept close to religions, relying on faith rather than evidence. Are you close to religion yourself maybe?
I’m calling from being responsible and to stop the cancer that are religions. The good it once brought is now inferior to the atrocities it sustains so it is time to call for its end.
That is the stands I take. Nothing related to beliefs.
Do you not realize how much “belief” is in science?
Someone believed in the Higgs Boson before it was proven.
We still today believe in the big bang theory, not because it’s been proven, but because there’s a consensus that says it’s the most plausible explanation.
Science still doesn’t tell us even what to believe regarding the origins of life and consciousness.
We believe in dark matter and dark energy, not because they’ve been directly observed, but because they’re the best possible explanations that we have at this time for certain phenomena that we believe to be their effects.
We believe that there must be some overarching principles that can unite the formulas of quantum physics and general relativity, but no one knows what they are.
Often in medicine, decisions are made based on what the doctors believe, even when there isn’t 100% certainty.
So stop pretending there’s no such thing as belief in science, because there absolutely is.
Because there was evidence of its existence, in the form of occasional (but detectable) interactions between particles that produced unexpected results. No one thought the Higgs Boson existed until there was a scientific reason for its existence. If this is what you’re referring to as “belief in science”, then we’re dealing with multiple definitions of the word “belief”, because that’s nowhere close to how it works in religion.
That doesn’t change the fact that until it had been demonstrably proven, it was still within the realm of belief rather than fact.
I’m sure the first people to conceive of the idea of a god had reasons for believing too. The stars in the night sky, the light in the eyes of their first child, the scent of blossoms on a gentle spring breeze, the taste of fresh fruit in summer. How do you explain those things before you understand atoms and molecules and photons?
Isaac Newton had reasons to believe in his model of physics. And for many years, they were the best explanations for the way things behave the way they do. Until it wasn’t.
Now that we know about general relativity, does that change the fact that Newtonian physics were science?
None of this matters, really. At least it’s not pertinent to the subject. Because no matter how you look at it, it doesn’t justify forcing your worldview and beliefs on others. And that’s what this whole conversation has been about.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Again, in science, the “realm of belief” is something different than the “realm of belief” for religion. If you can’t acknowledge that, I can’t assume you’re approaching this conversation in good faith.
So, that’s actually the difference I’m talking about. In science, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you say is “huh, I don’t know the answer to that”. You don’t claim you know the answer to those questions until you actually know the answer. But by using rational, critical thought, evidence, and carrying out the scientific method, you figure out those answers, piece by piece. In religion, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you do is make up an answer based on unprovable, unobservable supernatural forces, and then that’s basically the end of it. Is the difference clear yet?
Right, he “believed” in his model because of evidence, observation, rational and critical thought, and the scientific method. His model was superseded when we were able to make better observations, and saw unexpected things in certain cases that didn’t match his predictions. That clued us in that his model wasn’t quite right, and there must be a piece missing. People went looking for that piece and found relativity, which has proven to be an even more accurate model than Newton’s.
Of course not, and the fact that you’re even asking shows you have a deeply flawed understanding of science (or are not engaging honestly). Religion is largely constant. Science is very much not. Religion is constant because it fabricates the answers and then stops. Science changes because it leaves room to say “I don’t know”, and has well-defined mechanisms for filling those gaps with good, rational answers, as well as improving upon or even replacing those answers when we learn better. In that way, the “belief” in religion is nothing like the “belief” in science.
It may not be directly pertinent to the main point, but it does absolutely matter. Understanding the differences between religion and science is paramount if you’re going to argue about them, and I hope this has given you (and anyone else who reads it) some food for thought.
I purposely avoided bringing science in this. You did to match your own narrative. No need for science when everywhere around us, plainly visible, religions are causing wars and sufferings.
This is you bringing science into this.
Let’s go back and stick with reality and facts. My bad.
You purposely avoided an angle which plainly shows the error of your assertions? And you’re accusing me of “matching my own narrative” when I show those errors with that angle which you ostensibly avoided?
Also, these are your literal words:
So no, you didn’t avoid bringing science into this.
Also:
Bold words for someone trying to rationalize forcing your worldview on others by claiming it’s scientific and therefore deserves an exception from the “don’t force your worldview on others” rule…
Have you considered competing in the Olympics? Because those are some impressive mental gymnastics…
Heyaaaa now you’re using fallacies :) I’ll gladly go for olympics if there was a fitting discipline yes.
By all means keep defending Rhodes antiquated systems that promote abuse and suffering. I know where we both stand and it suffice to me; you’re never going to change my views on that.
Oooohh you just don’t know what words mean. Okay. I’ll let someone with more patience for stupidity handle this. Good day to you.
Fresh from the Oxford Dictionary ;
But please be my guest and educate me.
So… quantum gravity theory, string theory, unified field theory, big bang theory, big crunch theory, and dark matter/dark energy are all beliefs then and in your opinion should therefore be banned?
Those are a tad further than opinions and feelings I suspect. And also are absolutely unrelated to how religions are generating suffering and should be abolished.
And you believe this definition to be true?
Nope. I don’t need to believe in them, they just are. Produced by persons undoubtedly smarter than I am.