polite debate on religion?

Question

I will present a quote, and welcome thoughts and debate. I only ask to please keep this civil, and no hurling of insults or cynical comments from either side, all of which will be reported.

the quote:
"Religion...has certian ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; your just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'.
Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Consercatice party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh

instead of windows - but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created that Universe...no, that's holy?...We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard (Dawkins) creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be"

- Douglas Adams,

I thought the question was obvious, but alright.

the quesiton:
Do you agree with this quote yes or no and explain your answear.

Answer 1

I absolutely agree with the quote. Many writers have pointed out that people are at their angriest and most defensive when they try to defend a conviction for which they have little evidence. Nobody shouts from the rooftops that the sky is blue, and nobody wages wars in the name of Geometry. I think the psychological/emotional force at work in this phenomenon is that of cognitive dissonance. We all like to think of ourselves as rational and well-informed, and even the suggestion that our guiding priciples might be unfounded can be very threatening to this self-regard. Most people would prefer not to justify their convictions when the attempt might prove them to be foundless.

Of course, not all people avoid religious discussion for this reason. Some subscibe to the philosophy of fideism, which holds that the things we put faith in are beyond reason, and therefore rational discussion has no bearing within the sphere of religion. But I think this implies a contradiction; I have a real problem with the idea that an all-knowing and all-loving being would create us with the capacity for rational thought and then demand that we not apply that thought toward the most important aspects of our lives.

Answer 2

Yes it should be. It can be debated, discussed etc. I learn a lot from debating and watching debates between Jews and Christians. I am Jewish and it makes me stronger in my own faith. Perhaps it makes Christians stronger in theirs. Sometimes I am asked a question I cannot answer right away and in that case I am driven back to my books to examine and learn. I suppose a debate could change my mind. I am open minded in a debate and I suppose I would let it. I go where the my knowledge and belief take me. Partially based on logic. Partially based on faith. Partially based on belief. If a person would not debate their religion then I feel they must not think they have a firm enough foundation or feel honest review of their beliefs is a threat. I do not believe a debate could determine if there was G-d or not. That is too much a matter of faith and simple belief, however, it could help us to learn why some people do not believe and why others do and why some are so aggressive in their beliefs (for or against) Examination and debate of mine or any other religion would be a great and welcome thing as far as I am concerned. Great question!

Answer 3

No religious idea or tenet should be accepted as an absolute truth. All things should be open for debate. All religions have changed over time so debate must have occurred at some point for those in charge to change their minds.

Absolute laws of man or nature are usually ridiculous. Kids get thrown out of school for having a chocolate toy gun 1" long. No guns in school! Absurd - it was candy.

To kill another is a mortal sin - yet we train and send our soldiers off to do just that and justify it as self defense. We can question that, can't we?

No meat on Friday - what if you have been starving for days and are presented the opportunity to eat a chicken leg? Sorry, wait until tomorrow?

If - and it's a big IF - there is a god, wouldn't he/she want there to be discussion on every commandment? It is the time to teach right from wrong; to explain why a belief has merit. Not to discuss is dictatorial and leads to rebellion.

Arguing is too strong a word for polite discussion. Arguing implies to me that neither side is open to the thoughts of others. Instead, one can ask for the other's point of view and supporting points; then you should be allowed to present your side with no repercussions or malicious intent.

Talk is good.

Answer 4

The predominant flaw in that quote is that people *do* say bad things about each other's religions. That's why history (and the present, funny about that) is full of religious wars.

As for the reason we have a tacit agreement in general not to speak ill of one another's religions, it is because religion is at the very core of what someone believes. Right or wrong, it's the foundation of many people's lives, and as such any debate on the point usually leads to people feeling they are being personally attacked and so they tend to react very badly to the feeling of this being threatened. It illicits far greater emotion than any other debate, especially in instances where belief is held up by teaching or tradition, not by making an informed decision. (I'm not saying no-one makes informed decisions about religion, but the ignorant are more aggressive owing to the inability to substantiate their claim and a desire to maintain an image - those who come to a decision legitimately may be passionate but less likely to attack blindly.) Long story short, religious debate is usually downright dangerous, so we try to avoid it.

Answer 5

I think you have some generalizations that conflict so to prove your point. There are a lot of people for whom you can't argue politics with, many who are very normal in the outside world. I've learned not to argue about welfare or health care with a person that I don't know really well. -that's one generalization. The other is that people normally don't have strong, healthy debates about religion. They do, and often in the same places we get strong, healthy debates about healthcare, in a governing system. Just this weekend the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America elected to have Gay monogomous preachers allowed to practice. That's a very hot topic, but they obviously were about to debate it and vote on it.

To answer your question though, there are things in each of us that are sacred. Some of those things are religious, some are political, and some are just random. But they are what makes us who we are. I had a roommate that had a twisted sense of politics and it was sacred to her. I couldn't argue with her about it because it was so sacred. I'd just have to accept her beliefs. Other people are like this about religion. Some people are like this about virtually everything.

It's not that religion is sacred, it's that we need sacred things in our lives. They're what we depend on when nothing else is there. Religion, though not very stable, is still more stable than most everything else in life, it's a good choice when making something in your life sacred. And that's why, at that level, it's not often open to general debate.

Answer 6

I think people DO argue about religion in that fashion. I've especially heard people of the Jewish faith debate and argue openly... and relish it. For that, it probably depends on the social climate you happen to be in at the moment. Ultimately, I think religion is much touchier than politics or computer software debates because the idea that dogma, biblical law, etc (i.e. "laws of faith or god) are handed down by an unknown and unquestionable force. To get into the logistics is just REALLY too complicated for, say, office conversation. But trust me, people do debate different ideas and beliefs, especially when they overlap. The light switch idea doesn't apply to everyone the way taxes do.

Answer 7

Religion is meant to be something that doesn't ask for our introspect. It is not provocative at all. As for a Religious idea, it should be understood, at least. Even if it is not practiced by the listener. A simple belief in Religion doesn't warrant debate, and as a layman (not a theologian) I digress from discussing Scriptures. I politely excuse myself from talking about them.

Answer 8

Maybe it is because everyone knows their religious beliefs don't hold water under the slightest bit of scrutiny, and the ones that are mostly correct dissuade from debate at all, as it brings suffering.

Answer 9

idk i don't exactly agree with all of it- people tend to get really touchy about their religious beliefs because it's their lifestyle, what they've based their entire life upon and it can be more insulting if someone tries to tell them it's wrong.
like it would change your whole life if you suddenly had to take on a totally different religion that you didn't agree with, not as much if the taxes went up or down.
and also we have free will and we don't HAVE to obey whatever laws our religion has set down for us, we choose to.

Answer 10

Great quote from "The God Delusion".

Religion is cover for a multitude of sins.

.