--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
> I don't think it makes any sense to object to ideas > *unless* they are the cause of bad actions. The thing > is, certain ideas can lead to good actions as well as > bad ones, depending on the interpretation and > inclinations of the actor. I must be missing something here. It would be wrong to challenge a person's view that the world is flat if the person doesn't do bad things? That reduces the whole field of intellectual discourse to a pretty low level doesn't it? This view is used to protect the Muslim's right to believe in a holy book with absolute authority whose prophet condones the killing of infidels. The argument is that only a small number of Muslims take him at his word and go out and kill infidels. But in the case of the karmic thoery and its social manifestation in the caste system the numbers are reversed. We have millions of people who believe in this thoery outside India who may not be using it for repression. But we have close to a billion people in India whose lives are oppressed by this belief. If a person lived in England during our legal slavery era didn't own slaves but believed in the divinely sanctioned right to own them, would his idea be any less wrong? I am proposing that karmic thoery is not just the basis for cruelty in the vast majority of its believer's lives. I am saying further that it is a belief with poor evidence. And that it deserves to be subjected to the same analysis we give any other bad idea. Every area of our intellectual discourse is governed by laws of reason and evidence based criteria for evaluating the worthiness of the idea. Shielding spiritual beliefs from this process itself is a bad idea. Because the source of the idea comes from a system of authority, the argument that is often used by religious moderates that they don't take it all literally doesn't solve the problem of people who do. Your example of a Biblical saying being used in a good an bad way is an excellent illustration. > The biblical story of Sodom, for example, leads some > people to condemn homosexuality; it leads others to > practice hospitality and charity. > The reason it is wrong to persecute gay people has nothing to do with the scripture. The reason people practice hospitality and charity has nothing to do with the scripture. These are values we hold as a society or at least try to impose laws to disallow the worst violations. Linking these behaviors good or bad to the authority of scripture rather than the process of reasonable discourse about what kind of world we want to live in is the problem in my view. Because there is nothing intrinsic in the system of authority that guides one person to use it for good and another to use it for evil. So I say let all human ideas stand on their own merit and don't shield spiritual claims with claims of bigotry just because someone challenges the idea as a bad one, held for bad reasons. You would be right to tell a holocaust denier that his idea was wrong by the evidence even if he didn't use it to do bad things to Jews today. And a person who challenges them to provide evidence to support their outrageous belief is not a bigot for asking them to prove it. People will always believe things that are false. Myself included. The issue for me is how we discuss ideas, with freedom of the right to challenge bad evidence, or in a protected class of beliefs that are considered too special to be subjected to the same process that we use for every other idea in our society. No one would claim that a person is being a bigot for telling a member of the the other political party that their ideas have no merit. And no one would get away with a bad idea with the excuse that they haven't hurt anyone with it yet. The freedom to challenge ideas is a very good thing. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -<curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > It is his rejection of that cruel ideology that makes his > > > > > > > > thinking so attractive to me. He is saying something that > > > > > > > > is the opposite view of the karmic belief system, "it's > > > > > > > > not fair!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, let's say it's the opposite of the view of some > > > > > > > who believe in karma. > > > > > > > > > > > > The phrase "It's not fair" is the exact opposite of karmic > > > > > > theory without any need to reference how people apply what > > > > > > it means to their personal lives. > > > > > > > > > > LOL! Sorry, but I think it's absurd to get all wrought > > > > > up over belief in the abstract. How can it be "cruel" > > > > > except in reference to how it's applied? > > > > > > > > Black people are inferior. Apply that in the good way. > > > > > > What?? You just said there was no "need to reference how > > > people apply what it means to their personal lives." > > > > Ideas can be intrinsically wrong with no way to express > > them nicely. I am objecting to ideas. > > I don't think it makes any sense to object to ideas > *unless* they are the cause of bad actions. The thing > is, certain ideas can lead to good actions as well as > bad ones, depending on the interpretation and > inclinations of the actor. > > The biblical story of Sodom, for example, leads some > people to condemn homosexuality; it leads others to > practice hospitality and charity. > > <snip> > > > > But the fact that he supported a > > > > socially oppressive system is a fact. Unless you have a > > > > reason why today children should be brought up in the > > > > brothel caste. > > > > > > Did Guru Dev support children being brought up in the > > > brothel caste? > > > > Yes by supporting the system that keeps them their. > > You think he would have approved of all the manifestations > of the caste system, including children kept in slavery in > brothels? > > <snip> > > > > It is a direct result of the system. These unchallenged > > > > beliefs are a problem. It is also a problem how it gets > > > > applied. > > > > > > I'm not sure how they can be a "problem" *unless* they're > > > used as an excuse for bad behavior, and even then I think > > > it's the behavior that needs to be challenged rather than > > > the beliefs. > > > > I don't really understand how you are separating beliefs > > and actions here. I am looking at the beliefs as the cause > > of the problems in the actions. > > Yes, I know. I'm suggesting that isn't the only way to > look at it. I think the beliefs are too easy a target > and too vulnerable to misunderstanding. That approach > is fraught with all kinds of pitfalls. Go after the > *behavior*. That has the advantage of being empirically > observable. > > <snip> > > > > First of all if we want to talk about having a simplistic > > > > understanding of the Hindu religious beliefs I have to > > > > object to your using Krishna's statement about the > > > > unfathomable nature of Karma out of context. > > > > > > I'm sorry, where did I use that statement in this > > > discussion?\ > > > > In your first response you used the phrase that Karma > > was unfathomable or not understandable. > > I believe I said "complicated and inscrutable." > > > If you didn't get this idea from the Gita then it sounded > > like you had. > > I don't need the Gita to tell me that if karma exists, > it must be complicated and inscrutable. > > > > > I am arguing against a system of beliefs that claims to > > > > know how the universe works after death. And a society that > > > > uses that system to oppress people for generations. > > > > > > And I say again, I think people behave the way they want > > > to behave regardless of their religion. Some pretty awful > > > things happened to Native American children when Christians > > > got hold of them, just for one of far too many examples. > > > > I think it is intrinsic in the ideas that one person knows > > the mind of God. For me that is the cause of these injustices. > > It is certainly true that some religious people are fabulous > > in every way. > > Yes, and they can be motivated by the same ideas, the same > knowing the mind of God, as the people who are awful in > every way. > > > But their belief in bullshit should be challenged just > > as we have in every other area of human knowledge. > > I disagree. I think it's a recipe for bigotry. Challenge > the *behavior*, not the ideas. > > <snip> >
