If I criticize religion, do I need to carefully define my epistemological position first?

Answer 1

First you need to define 'epistemological'...

The only reason to define your position is so the people whose religion you're criticizing to have a target for a counter-attack. If you don't say what you believe, they'll have to guess. Which they usually do anyway.

I think if your position is obvious from your criticism, you can skip the introduction. Like, if you're pointing out one of the myriad absurdities of Creationism, most people will probably assume you are an atheist, and therefore tell you you're going to hell. Of course, if you are in fact a Deist who believes in God but not the Young Earth hypothesis, you should probably mention that at the outset, so people don't waste time condemning your godlessness.

Answer 2

Not a bad idea - incidentally, when I support religion I am often guilty of not defining my position first.

So much of what goes on here appears to be about jockeying for position, "winning" through shock and awe, enjoying a laugh at someone else's expense, venting frustration, making blanket statements about ones oponents and trolling for hapless victims. I have seen little helpful exchange or thoughtful, considerate debate. Taking time to define ones position up front and carefully laying out the logic behind it would go along ways toward improving this site.

Thanks for a thoughtful question!
Tom

Answer 3

I think not, you can criticize religion to help you find your epistemological position, but if you criticize, why not praise also? This is my answer even though i'm not exactly sure of the definition of epistemological. lol.

Answer 4

maximum religions are in no place to criticize different religions. There are consistently some extremist non secular nuts who're violent, antagonistic and offensive, in rather lots each faith. maximum human beings of Muslims are like maximum human beings of Christians, Hindus, despite, and don't commit atrocities. I even have some non-Muslim acquaintances who're consistently attempting to "save" everybody on the block and eliminate every physique or something that stands of their way. comparable ingredient.

Answer 5

If one human judges, then he should be judged. Why? Because every human has a different subjective experience. Considering no two humans experience each other's subjective experience, it would be foolish for one person to judge another person's view of reality as a whole. The only way judgement can be placed is by showing faulty logic in the order of thoughts.

Answer 6

Well, can I really KNOW your epistemological position regardless of how well you define it?... You first must define everyone else's epistemological position then move on to your own.

(That's a "no")

Answer 7

Why criticize? I can imagine "debate" instead, and then, yes, it would be best to define your position to establish a basis of understanding and debate from there or not.

_()_

Answer 8

Will this have anything to do with that filter at the back of your brain that lets in a tiny portion of all the data that hits it? I think it is variable depending on how your brain is assessing your emergency needs, values needs and general upkeep needs at any point in time. What is the name of that part? Could you let me know if you know it?

Answer 9

Not at all. Courtesy is appreciated,and educated people have historically disliked bigotry,but,no,speak frankly and skip the sophistry.

Answer 10

I have been criticizing it for years. That was after I had my eptimologicil vision adjusted.