![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 68. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on October 2, 2006, at 11:14:19
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 2, 2006, at 10:55:50
> > I didn't think the quote in question was uncivil. She didn't say any particular religion was untrue, and she didn't say the majority of religions were untrue or that most religions were untrue or that all religions but hers were untrue.
>
> Still, I don't think it's sensitive or respectful to imply that any religions are untrue.It really isn't, but still...
I just wish it didn't happen. That's all. I thought it might have been an attempt at producing a logic statement - perhaps with an unconscious bias. I did jump to a conclusion when I read it. Nothing has changed my mind regarding that conclusion. However, I tried to interact with the special civility and objectively that the Faith board recommends and deserves.
I don't disagree with the decision. The words are what they are. Perhaps it is not the job of the moderator to judge the intent of the poster. That would be jumping to conclusions.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 2, 2006, at 11:32:32
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by Toph on October 2, 2006, at 11:13:22
> >
> > I don't think it's sensitive or respectful to imply that any religions are untrue.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Conversely, I would find it insensitive and disrespectful to my beliefs if someone were to imply that any religion was all true.
> Toph
I think it is civil for someone to state, "I believe that my religion is all true." I think this would be a civil statement, even if stating those beliefs or providing links to those beliefs would not be civil. If someone believes, then they believe. It is a statement of fact demonstrated by its having been written by the poster. It is not civil to state, "My religion is all true." This is not a fact (most probably), and is not civil if the beliefs of that religion are in conflict with any other religion (which they probably are).I think?
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on October 2, 2006, at 11:40:41
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 2, 2006, at 10:55:50
Dr. Bob, I don't understand that at all.
Many religions teach things that are completely incompatible with the teachings of other religions. How can they all be true, if one says that X equals Y, and others say that X does not equal Y? I draw no conclusions about whether X does or doesn't equal Y, but surely it's not unsupportive to say that either X equals Y or it doesn't, but that X can't both equal Y and not equal Y?
I must have read that sentence completely differently than you did.
Posted by muffled on October 2, 2006, at 11:45:19
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 2, 2006, at 10:55:50
> > I didn't think the quote in question was uncivil. She didn't say any particular religion was untrue, and she didn't say the majority of religions were untrue or that most religions were untrue or that all religions but hers were untrue.
>
> Still, I don't think it's sensitive or respectful to imply that any religions are untrue.
>
> Bob***So how come long block insteada of a least an opportunity to please rephrase?
Have I missed something here...
Muffled
Posted by SLS on October 2, 2006, at 12:52:45
In reply to Re: untrue religions » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 2, 2006, at 11:40:41
> Dr. Bob, I don't understand that at all.
>
> Many religions teach things that are completely incompatible with the teachings of other religions. How can they all be true, if one says that X equals Y, and others say that X does not equal Y? I draw no conclusions about whether X does or doesn't equal Y, but surely it's not unsupportive to say that either X equals Y or it doesn't, but that X can't both equal Y and not equal Y?Huh?
<Eyes crossed>
:-)
My drugs better start working fast. My brain works too slow to be able to process all that stuff. It actually can't keep in working memory enough items to process what you said.
:-(
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 2, 2006, at 13:00:12
In reply to Re: untrue religions » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 2, 2006, at 11:40:41
> Dr. Bob, I don't understand that at all.
>
> Many religions teach things that are completely incompatible with the teachings of other religions. How can they all be true, if one says that X equals Y, and others say that X does not equal Y? I draw no conclusions about whether X does or doesn't equal Y, but surely it's not unsupportive to say that either X equals Y or it doesn't, but that X can't both equal Y and not equal Y?
>
> I must have read that sentence completely differently than you did.
I will say this. The first time I read the sentence, I felt that my belief system was being put down. Now when I read the sentence, I feel the same way.The main reason I didn't want to see the poster blocked was purely selfish. I wanted to continue the discourse with him or her. I thought one could make a legitimate argument that the phrase being cited for sanction could have been misjudged as being judgmental when it was perhaps an attempt at making a statement of logic. I thought it was a close call. I gave it a shot.
- Scott
Posted by 3mta3 on October 2, 2006, at 14:12:27
In reply to Re: untrue religions - true feelings, posted by SLS on October 2, 2006, at 13:00:12
Posted by Declan on October 2, 2006, at 14:50:55
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 2, 2006, at 10:55:50
Religions are inconsistant with each other. We can find no evidence (in the scientific view) for truth or falsity in any religion. I think Rawww saying 'not all religions are true' was an attempt to be neutral and polite. Clearly all religions cannot be true? Maybe not? That's what you get with religion. No one for example asks 'Is Dostoyevsky true?'
Posted by SLS on October 2, 2006, at 15:33:38
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by Declan on October 2, 2006, at 14:50:55
> Religions are inconsistant with each other...
> ...Clearly all religions cannot be true?
One would think.
> We can find no evidence (in the scientific view) for truth or falsity in any religion.
I think you need to be careful when using absolutes when speaking of a subject like religion, for which the only thing that is absolute is uncertainty. Even this statement is an absolute that is inherently untrue. People who have absolute faith and belief in their religion are without uncertainty.
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on October 2, 2006, at 16:38:21
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 2, 2006, at 10:55:50
Nowhere did she say that there were any *completely* untrue religions.
Only that not *all* religions are *all* true.
It's like a double negative.
How does that put anyone down?
Posted by SLS on October 2, 2006, at 16:56:15
In reply to Re: untrue religions » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on October 2, 2006, at 16:38:21
> Nowhere did she say that there were any *completely* untrue religions.
>
> Only that not *all* religions are *all* true.
>
> It's like a double negative.No. The second "all" is simply superfluous.
> How does that put anyone down?
I do not accept that any part of my religion is untrue. To me, that is a put down. See? I see the statement as proposing the possibility that my religion is a member of that category of "not all religions are all true". I do not accept that possibility. It is a put down that it be proposed.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on October 2, 2006, at 17:13:29
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by SLS on October 2, 2006, at 16:56:15
Why would you think she meant yours? Or any particular religion?
Is there some context I'm not aware of?
Posted by Declan on October 2, 2006, at 18:04:19
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by SLS on October 2, 2006, at 16:56:15
OK, I don't have any religion. There are things that annoy me (like fundamentalism) but I couldn't effectively claim to feel put down by them. Apart from the odd Buddhist or Rumi type, there's no other religions on the Faith Board. Imagine if we had some Aztec revivalists or Voodoo people there.
Posted by SLS on October 2, 2006, at 18:11:43
In reply to Re: untrue religions » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 2, 2006, at 17:13:29
> Why would you think she meant yours? Or any particular religion?
I was speaking hypothetically, Dinah.
It could just as easily have been me who felt put down by the statement. Actually, I did feel put down, as I indicated in a previous post.
The logic in the statement yields nothing less than the proposition of the possible inferiority of the reader. To process the logic further, at most, only one religion can be all true. The reader is then faced with the proposition that the author would choose for himself the religion that was all true. If the reader's religion is different from the author's religion, then the reader has just been told that his religion is not all true. Only a religion that is all true can be Truth. Therefore, any religion that is not all true is not Truth. The author has, in effect, made the statement that his religion is the only true religion and that all other religions are not true religions.
> Is there some context I'm not aware of?
I purposely avoided the context of the rest of the post when I originally defended the sanctioned phrase as perhaps deserving of a second look. I thought it might give evidence of intent. I preferred that the phrase be judged as a logic statement independent of context. I thought it would have a better chance of being deemed acceptable.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 2, 2006, at 18:23:23
In reply to Re: untrue religions » Dinah, posted by SLS on October 2, 2006, at 18:11:43
Sorry for the error...
Inserted: <he believed>
"The logic in the statement yields nothing less than the proposition of the possible inferiority of the reader. To process the logic further, at most, only one religion can be all true. The reader is then faced with the proposition that the author would choose for himself the religion that <he believed> was all true. If the reader's religion is different from the author's religion, then the reader has just been told that his religion is not all true. Only a religion that is all true can be Truth. Therefore, any religion that is not all true is not Truth. The author has, in effect, made the statement that his religion is the only true religion and that all other religions are not true religions."
Posted by gardenergirl on October 2, 2006, at 19:08:24
In reply to Re: untrue religions » Dinah, posted by SLS on October 2, 2006, at 18:11:43
Although being non-religious, I didn't feel put down. But I read the post the same way as you did and felt concerned about it.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2006, at 20:00:56
In reply to I had a similar reaction » SLS, posted by gardenergirl on October 2, 2006, at 19:08:24
> Dr. Bob, I don't understand that at all.
I agree.
> Many religions teach things that are completely incompatible with the teachings of other religions. How can they all be true, if one says that X equals Y, and others say that X does not equal Y? I draw no conclusions about whether X does or doesn't equal Y, but surely it's not unsupportive to say that either X equals Y or it doesn't, but that X can't both equal Y and not equal Y?In fact many religious texts say X at one place and notX at another. How can both those statements be true? It doesn't have to be a between religion comparison, a within religion investigation delivers the same result.
Maybe you consider it unsupportive to say so, however?
Science makes truth apt claims about the world. Scientific claims can be investigated for truth and falsity and the aim of science is to make true claims about the world.
Religion either makes false claims about the world since when you have two claims that contradict each other then one or the other or both must be false (so it is bad science) or it is best read as not even trying to make truth apt claims about the world. My understanding of faith is that it is supposed to be applied to things that aren't capable of being supported or falsified by the world. That is what makes faith faith as opposed to a rational investigation.
> There is truth in all religions, but not all religions are all true.
The logic of the latter doesn't rule out it being the case that there isn't even one religon that is all true. It doesn't explicitly rule that out.
But it does entails that there is one or more religions which contain a falsehood.
Here is an example:
the bat is a bird (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 14:11, 18)
and on internal consistency
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
> The author has, in effect, made the statement that his religion is the only true religion and that all other religions are not true religions.I'm sorry SLS. I don't think that follows...
I'm sorry you are having a hard time :-(
And I'm sorry you read things that way :-(
But I really don't think... Your conclusions follow from what was said.
And I'm really not sure that they were meant that way.
Posted by Toph on October 2, 2006, at 22:41:46
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by SLS on October 2, 2006, at 18:23:23
Given that many religions differ in their tenets, to assert that "not all religions are all true" is an indesputable fact. That someone might identify with such a statement and so be offended is also a possibility, and therefore, could be judged by these rules to be an aggregious incivility punishable by banishment from participation for a significant period of time.
It is clear that facts can be uncivil. If I were to assert that all people are not perfect, this fact would be similarly uncivil because undoubtedly there might be some reader who believes that he or she is perfect.
Posted by SLS on October 3, 2006, at 0:45:07
In reply to Re: untrue religions » SLS, posted by Toph on October 2, 2006, at 22:41:46
> Given that many religions differ in their tenets, to assert that "not all religions are all true" is an indesputable fact.
I just woke up from a long nap and I am pretty groggy at the moment. This seems rather true and rather benign at the moment.
> That someone might identify with such a statement and so be offended is also a possibility,
Yes, it is. You hit the target here.
Statements on the Faith board are judged differently than on the other boards. They are supposed to be supportive affirmations. This was a negative statement. Its purpose was to declare that some religions are not true religions. It accuses at least some religions of being untrue. This is the crux of the matter.
> and therefore, could be judged by these rules to be an aggregious incivility punishable by banishment from participation for a significant period of time.
I'm not sure the punishment fit the crime here. That's why I started this thread. I was hoping that the statement might be considered on its merits as a statement of logic, rather than a statement of accusation. It really could have been a sincere attempt at proposing a logic statement and nothing more, especially since it was an introductory statement to the post. I guess only a "rephrase" could be offered as a substitute sanction if a reduction in punishment were to be offered. Rules are rules, I guess. Dr. Bob has his formula for determining lengths of blocks, and I don't think it would be equitable to make an adjustment here.
> It is clear that facts can be uncivil.
Yes, stating facts on Psycho-Babble can be uncivil.
> If I were to assert that all people are not perfect, this fact would be similarly uncivil..
First of all, it is not a fact.
However, it would still be civil. It is not a matter of faith or religion to be found on the Faith board.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 3:34:56
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by SLS on October 3, 2006, at 0:45:07
> Statements on the Faith board are judged differently than on the other boards.
Yes.
> They are supposed to be supportive affirmations.
Of religious faith, yes.
> This was a negative statement.
The statement was about religion, not about religious faith. I thought the aim of religion was faith, not truth. Hence, people read about God creating the world in 6 days so they can marvel at the power of God instead of studying cosmology and evolutionary theory in scientific textbooks to learn the facts about the history of the universe and speciation and the like.
If the aim of religion is faith, not truth, then it isn't a negative statement with respect to the aim of religion.
> Its purpose was to declare that some religions are not true religions. It accuses at least some religions of being untrue. This is the crux of the matter.
But it the poster didn't say (or imply) that.
It doesn't accuse any religion (not a single one) of being untrue. What the poster said was that at least one religion has at least one falsehood in it.
Posted by SLS on October 3, 2006, at 6:53:14
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 3:34:56
> It doesn't accuse any religion (not a single one) of being untrue. What the poster said was that at least one religion has at least one falsehood in it.
You might be missing my point. There is nothing wrong with the phrase as a logic statement as it sits by itself out of context. However, in a social context, I believe it is an implied put down of all religions other than the one held by the author for the reasons I have already detailed in a previous post.
The statement in question: "not all religions are all true."My response:
"To process the logic further, at most, only one religion can be all true. The reader is then faced with the proposition that the author would choose for himself the religion that he believed was all true. If the reader's religion is different from the author's religion, then the reader has just been told that his religion is not all true. Only a religion that is all true can be Truth. Therefore, any religion that is not all true is not Truth. The author has, in effect, made the statement that his religion is the only true religion and that all other religions are not true religions."
> The statement was about religion, not about religious faith. I thought the aim of religion was faith, not truth.
Faith and religion. Sometimes the two words are used interchangeably. I think faith is a matter of trust and belief. Religion may be more a matter of content and doctrine for which faith is applied. Nevertheless, we must consider that a reasonable readership will have members that will equate their religion with Truth, especially since it is the doctrine of many religions that they represent Truth.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 7:06:56
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by SLS on October 3, 2006, at 6:53:14
> in a social context, I believe it is an implied put down of all religions other than the one held by the author for the reasons I have already detailed in a previous post.
I'm sorry you interpreted the poster as intentionally putting down your religion.
I don't think that happened explicitly. It certainly doesn't follow from what was said.
I don't think it is very charitable to interpret them at intending to imply that.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 7:08:38
In reply to Re: untrue religions » SLS, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 7:06:56
I think they should have got a warning before a blocking at the very least
:-(
And I don't see why that was 'bad' enough for a blocking even less a doubling of length of block.
Posted by Toph on October 3, 2006, at 7:47:32
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by SLS on October 3, 2006, at 0:45:07
>
> First of all, it is not a fact.
>
> However, it would still be civil. It is not a matter of faith or religion to be found on the Faith board.
>That all people are not the same makes the statement inherently true (unless you believe that all people are perfect) as with the statement on religions.
So are you suggesting Scott that there should be a different set of rules on the Faith board from other boards?
Posted by Dinah on October 3, 2006, at 7:58:00
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by Toph on October 3, 2006, at 7:47:32
There is a separate set of rules already. :)
I'm ok with that, in general. I think this block makes me uncomfortable because that statement is the sort of thing I might have said, with no intent to put anyone at all down, and with no expectation I'd get in trouble saying it. It appears to *me*, on the face, to be a phrase that even if I perused my post for civility before submitting, I doubt I'd have thought about it twice. If there's some context I am not aware of, that's different.
I guess because it's an application of the rule that I don't really understand, and where I'm afraid that I could inadvertently make the same sort of error, my main reaction is that I should try not to post on Faith.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.