This is what I mean. I doubt that Akiva really respects the idea that God does not exist. He means he respects my thinking and sincerity even tho he thinks it has led me to the wrong conclusion. He respects certain things about me whilst thinking I am wrong, not the wrongness.https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/950414792484950017 …
I think this is a problem of thinking tho. I get a bee in my bonnet about 'respect'. I think it is essential to only give respect to ideas which have validity. I am worried about the idea of respecting ideas regardless of their truth value.
-
-
But your problem seems to be with the implications some people may have for the word "respect" more than its actual content if understood in the way I (and others) use it. You agree that there are wrong ideas that are worth taking seriously (& not because of their harmfulness)
-
Yes, but we need to think about what we consider respect-worthy, whether it is the idea itself or the thinking that has gone into it. When a scientific consensus is overturned by new evidence, we don't stop respecting the previous work but we do stop respecting the idea.
-
Yes ... but that's because the idea has been conclusively disproven. (Hence the lack of respect for flat-earthism). I don't think you can get to that type of conclusiveness in many cases of wrong ideas in philosophy/social sciences
-
This is true. But I still don't respect ideas unless there is some evidence of their soundness. And God is not really a philosophical or social science issue. He either exists or not. That is a scientific question.
-
We really do need to have that debate we talked about a while back
Once my custody trial is done, we're going to have it out in Aero, you hear?
But no, it's not a scientific question at all, since science is the study of the existent universe and ... -
Well, if God didn't create it and isn't having any impact on it, we won't be able to discover him unless we can develop science to enable us to get to wherever he is.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’m an atheist and I sorta think about it thusly: I can respect the religious even though I disagree with the existence of any supernatural god-entity because there’s more to it than simply the truth or falsity of that particular point.
-
Respect is not the same as agree is not the same as condone is not the same as worthy of consideration.
-
So if Akiva makes the point that his god sent down the Ten Commandments to Moses on a mountain top and he believes they should be followed, I respect that even though I disagree about any supernatural origins for them.
-
Furthermore, I generally respect the commandments as obviously beneficial guideposts for human interaction. That can be true and worthy of respect with or without an deity’s involvement.
-
Not when the first four are about the deity and slavery and rape get skipped.
-
Hence “generally.” If their origins are earthly (my belief) why can’t I make them severable such that I’m not obligated to take them all as equally valid?
-
Don’t rape, steal, murder, philander, lie, be jealous, etc.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.