News Should religion be a subject of criticism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kasse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Religion
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the distinction between criticism and defamation in the context of religious beliefs. Participants argue that while all doctrines should be open to criticism, many religious adherents perceive any negative commentary as defamation. The conversation highlights the fear of offending Muslims in Europe compared to the American context, where criticism of Christianity is often avoided. There is a call for dialogue between Catholics and Muslims to improve understanding, yet skepticism remains about the possibility of peaceful coexistence due to entrenched beliefs. Ultimately, the thread reflects a broader concern about the implications of religious criticism and the challenges of interfaith relations.
kasse
Messages
383
Reaction score
1
Very interesting read http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/7636

I think everything should be critcized. Nothing is holy! If you choose to follow certain doctrines, you can't expect others to respect those doctrines simply because you believe in them.

I think the current devlopment is scary, in particular in Europe, where everything is done to avoid offending muslims.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the issue is defamation, as opposed to criticism. The two are different.

I think the conflict lies when legitimate criticism of something is labeled as defamation.
 
From a religious point of view, I think all criticism will be classified as defamation.
 
kasse said:
From a religious point of view, I think all criticism will be classified as defamation.
Not at all. A valid criticism would to point out (criticize) inconsistencies in practice and profession. For example, if one were to espouse universal love and claim to be peaceful, but then commit acts of violence and murder, one's acts would be inconsistent with the profession of universal love and peace. It would not be defamation to point out that inconsistency.

Similarly if one professes adherence to a meager or humble lifestyle while living in opulence and aquiring great wealth, that would entail an inconsistency.
 
If I criticize the morality of Muhammed or God's behaviour in the Old Testament, would that be criticism or defamation?
 
Well, Astronuc:
If a religion happens to declare that infidels are to be fought until they are either killed, or in fear of their petty lives accept humiliating living conditions as dictated by the believer's community, and, essentially, that the community of the faithful retains the right to change those conditions at will, can we THEN criticize the religion without defaming it?

Note in particular that such a religion could be perfectly consistent..
 
Last edited:
Depends specifically on what you were saying. I didn't realize we Europeans went out of our way to avoid offending muslims.
 
kasse said:
From a religious point of view, I think all criticism will be classified as defamation.

I agree. Anyone serious about their religion will take any negative or destructive criticism as defamation.

Depends specifically on what you were saying. I didn't realize we Europeans went out of our way to avoid offending muslims.

We americans do.
 
Americans try to avoid criticizing Christianity. In Europe (with a few exceptions like Denmark and the Netherlands) people are more afraid of offending muslims.
 
  • #10
kasse said:
If I criticize the morality of Muhammed or God's behaviour in the Old Testament, would that be criticism or defamation?
If one were to claim a religious position was ****, then that would be defamation. If one were to take the position, analyze it, and the make a statement of disagreement, then that would not be defamation, but criticism.

The issue defamation seems to arise when a religion or some component (precept) is misrepresented.

If a religion happens to declare that infidels are to be fought until they are either killed, or in fear of their petty lives accept humiliating living conditions as dictated by the believer's community, and, essentially, that the community of the faithful retains the right to change those conditions at will, can we THEN criticize the religion without defaming it?
Certainly.

There was recently an article on Catholic and Muslim scholars who began to study together to better understand each other. Why can't people do that instead of fighting?

Why must animosities from historical conflicts persist?

Take religion out of the picture and one still has racial and ethnic differences, or class differences, or cultural differences. Pick a difference, and it seems that some people will use that as justification for conflict.


Nevertheless -
Catholics and Muslims Pledge to Improve Links
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07pope.html
VATICAN CITY — Catholic and Muslim leaders worked on Thursday to deflate suspicion between their two faiths, pledging at a high-level seminar here to work together to condemn terrorism, protect religious freedom and fight poverty.

The meeting came a year after 138 Muslim leaders wrote a letter to Pope Benedict XVI after he offended many Muslims by quoting a Byzantine emperor who called some teachings of the Prophet Muhammad “evil and inhuman.” In turn, top Vatican officials have worried about freedom of worship in majority-Muslim countries, as well as immigration that is turning Europe, which they define as a Christian continent, increasingly Muslim.

But on Thursday both sides said they hoped that the seminar would open a new and much-improved chapter in Catholic-Muslim relations, as the two groups said they might establish a committee that could ease tensions in any future crisis between the two religions.

“Let us resolve to overcome past prejudices and to correct the often distorted images of the other, which even today can create difficulties in our relations,” Benedict told the Muslim delegation. He called the gathering “a clear sign of our mutual esteem and our desire to listen respectfully to one another.”

Addressing the pope on behalf of the Muslim delegation, Seyyed Hossein Nasr of Iran, a professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University in Washington, said that throughout history, “various political forces” of both Christians and Muslims had carried out violence.

“Certainly we cannot claim that violence is the monopoly of only one religion,” he said.

The three-day forum brought together nearly 30 Catholic clerics and scholars, led by Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue; and as many Muslim clerics and scholars, led by Mustafa Ceric, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia and Herzegovina based in Sarajevo.

The meeting “exceeded our expectations,” said Ingrid Mary Mattson, the director of the Islamic Society of North America and a professor of Islamic studies at the Hartford Seminary.

“The atmosphere was very good, very frank,” said Tariq Ramadan, a professor of Islamic Studies at Oxford University. A celebrated intellectual in Europe, Mr. Ramadan in 2004 was denied a visa to the United States on the grounds that he had donated to two European charities that the State Department later said gave money to Hamas.

Mr. Ramadan said the thorniest questions the group tackled were “apostasy” and “freedom of worship in a minority situation.” Some Muslims believe it is apostasy to convert out of Islam.
. . . .
It doesn't hurt to talk. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #11
There was recently an article on Catholic and Muslim scholars who began to study together to better understand each other. Why can't people do that instead of fighting?

Why must animosities from historical conflicts persist?
Hmm..what if those animosities are celebrated as prime virtues in the holy books, and that lying and deception are glorified there as admirable tools in order to ultimately defeat the infidels?
 
  • #12
kasse said:
Americans try to avoid criticizing Christianity. In Europe (with a few exceptions like Denmark and the Netherlands) people are more afraid of offending muslims.

I don't know if there is any source for that or if that is just your personal opinion, but it is certainly not my experience.

I do think that religion as with everything should be open to criticism.
 
  • #13
It doesn't hurt to talk.
That depends on whom you are talking with, and what that person is actually doing, and advocating, on the sly..
 
  • #14
Astronuc said:
There was recently an article on Catholic and Muslim scholars who began to study together to better understand each other. Why can't people do that instead of fighting?

They cannot do that without ignoring their own religion. Religion and tolerance don't go hand in hand.
 
  • #15
arildno said:
Hmm..what if those animosities are celebrated as prime virtues in the holy books, and that lying and deception are glorified there as admirable tools in order to ultimately defeat the infidels?

Which is the case. For religious people - people who really believe in the doctrines of their religion, people of all other faiths (or lack of faith) represent a threat. The ultimate goal will always be to deefeat the infidels. Peaceful coexistence between the religions of the Middle East is never going to happen. Before we can have peace, we must get rid of religion.
 
  • #16
You are making threats against religion. It seems that you are the one out to defeat someone.
 
  • #17
The religions of the world didn't become what they are today because they were criticized, okay? I think if we started that now, they'd all collapse one by one.So let's get started.
 
  • #18
It seems that religious people have a right to feel threatened and respond in kind.
 
  • #19
I would suggest that there are two sides to the coin: Religious fanatics, and anti-religion fanatics.

They all look the same to me.
 
  • #20
Why even have this law at all? Freedom of speech theoretically covers all sorts of speech even if it is criticizing or harshly negative. Defamation would be like me saying "Roman Catholicism is a cult that manipulates its members". It is a statement that makes a false claim in order to give a sect of religion a negative image. Nevertheless, it's still perfectly within my rights to say. This proposed law is absolutely idiotic.
 
  • #21
I'm not making threats against other people's rights, I'm defending them. There's something called freedom of speech that now is under attack thanks to Islam.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Ivan Seeking said:
I would suggest that there are two sides to the coin: Religious fanatics, and anti-religion fanatics.

They all look the same to me.

If someone started a thread in your Skeptic forum saying "The universe is controlled by a supreme being that only those who want to can hear him." you would close the thread. What does that say about religion?

Or better yet, "I would suggest that there are two sides to the coin: Conspiracy theory fanatics and anti-conspiracy theory fanatics".

You're essentially comparing people who desperately believe that an old book and some myths are fact and people who desperately believe that an old book and some myths are not fact.

In that case, yes, I am an anti-religion fanatic. Just like I am an anti-Santa-Clause fanatic and an anti-creationist fanatic.
 
  • #23
Well said.

You've got a problem, Ivan, if you can't distinguish between a brainwashed islamist willing to kill himself and others in defence of an evil ideology disguised as a religon, and a peaceful secular humanist whose weapons are nothing but words.

I'm proud to be an anti-religon fanatic.
 
  • #24
WarPhalange said:
If someone started a thread in your Skeptic forum saying "The universe is controlled by a supreme being that only those who want to can hear him." you would close the thread. What does that say about religion?

S&D is for discussion of alleged unexplained phenomena. We don't talk about politics either.

Or better yet, "I would suggest that there are two sides to the coin: Conspiracy theory fanatics and anti-conspiracy theory fanatics".

What is your point? Conspiracies have always existed. If you are saying that there are no conspiracies, then you are incredibly naive.

You're essentially comparing people who desperately believe that an old book and some myths are fact and people who desperately believe that an old book and some myths are not fact.

I am referencing people who think it is their way or the highway.

In that case, yes, I am an anti-religion fanatic. Just like I am an anti-Santa-Clause fanatic and an anti-creationist fanatic.

Fine, but according to the Bill of Rights, we have a right to faith if we choose. There is a logical basis for faith, and no matter how loud you yell or how hard you kick, it won't go away. Making threats only makes the problem worse.
 
  • #25
From what I've seen of this thread so far, the original point made by the OP was never really meant to be discussed and they set out to deliberately bash religion. I don't think this thread is going to go anywhere.
 
  • #26
Ivan Seeking said:
There is a logical basis for faith, and no matter how loud you yell or how hard you kick, it won't go away.
What is the logical basis for faith?
 
  • #27
kasse said:
Well said.

You've got a problem, Ivan, if you can't distinguish between a brainwashed islamist willing to kill himself and others in defence of an evil ideology disguised as a religon, and a peaceful secular humanist whose weapons are nothing but words.

I'm proud to be an anti-religon fanatic.

You didn't limit this to religious extremists, you included all people of faith, which includes a majority of this country.
 
  • #28
Ivan Seeking said:
Fine, but according to the Bill of Rights, we have a right to faith if we choose.

Have I ever suggested that you ought not to have that right?

Ivan Seeking said:
There is a logical basis for faith

No. Faith is belief without evidence. That's the opposite of logic.
 
  • #29
Ivan Seeking said:
You didn't limit this to religious extremists, you included all people of faith, which includes a majority of this country.

You mean pick-and-choose Christians? Well, to be quite frank, I don't consider them religious. They hope more than they believe. But still, they make the world safe for fundamentalists.
 
  • #30
Gokul43201 said:
What is the logical basis for faith?

We can make a logical leap of faith based on personal experiences or the experiences of others. If we accept something blindly, then by definition there is no logic. But if one understands that faith is a choice, and if one understands that faith is something accepted without proof, then there is nothing illogical in making that choice.

It is all a matter of how we weight the evidence.
 
  • #31
Ivan Seeking said:
I am referencing people who think it is their way or the highway.

So if someone comes up to you and says "I think birds fly because trees are green", you'd accept that as a valid response?

I'd like to introduce you to a little concept called "science", where it is the right way or the highway.

Seeing as how the default position is that there is no god (i.e. no inherent proof), someone asserting the existence of a god should have to provide evidence. You can have any opinion you want, but when you start treating it as fact, then you need to be put into a straight jacket.

Fine, but according to the Bill of Rights, we have a right to faith if we choose. There is a logical basis for faith, and no matter how loud you yell or how hard you kick, it won't go away. Making threats only makes the problem worse.

No there is no logical basis for faith. Maybe you meant biological? Then I'd agree, humans are wired to have faith. But we're also wired to laugh when other people are laughing. Our bodies aren't exactly beacons of reasoning and excellence.
 
  • #32
Ivan Seeking said:
We can make a logical leap of faith based on personal experiences or the experiences of others. If we accept something blindly, then by definition there is no logic. But if one understands that faith is as choice, and if one understands that faith is something accepted without proof, then there is nothing illogical in making that choice.

No, what you just said is "Faith is illogical. Therefore by understanding that, it is logical to have faith." You just pushed it aside. Faith is accepting something blindly. Personal experience doesn't count as proof. You know that.
 
  • #33
Ivan Seeking said:
We can make a logical leap of faith based on personal experiences or the experiences of others. If we accept something blindly, then by definition there is no logic. But if one understands that faith is a choice, and if one understands that faith is something accepted without proof, then there is nothing illogical in making that choice.

It is all a matter of how we weight the evidence.

What kind of personal experience can justify the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?
 
  • #34
kasse said:
No. Faith is belief without evidence. That's the opposite of logic.

Not necessarily. Faith is belief without proof. You are also assuming that people of faith perceive no tangible advantage in following their faith.
 
  • #35
kasse said:
What kind of personal experience can justify the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?

There are as many faiths as there are people of faith. You can't limit this to one particular belief or another. For example, there are many Christians who don't believe most of what the bible says, and most Christians only believe certain aspects of biblical teachings.
 
  • #36
Ivan Seeking said:
You are making threats against religion. It seems that you are the one out to defeat someone.

Obviously. People who, for example, finds it perfectly all right and morally proper that other individuals (who happen not to share, say, their ideas about the origin of the universe) should be subject to never-ending, excruciating agony (for example by having their skin burnt to ashes, then get a new sown on in order to repeat the process ad infinitum), such individuals, IvanSeeking, ARE evil, and should be opposed.

In particular, they should be deprived the right to manipulate the brains of children (for example by forcibly adopting whatever children they have made among themselves). For starters.
 
  • #37
WarPhalange said:
No, what you just said is "Faith is illogical. Therefore by understanding that, it is logical to have faith." You just pushed it aside. Faith is accepting something blindly. Personal experience doesn't count as proof. You know that.

No, I said that it can be logical to choose faith, not that logic demands it.

Who says that we must have proof to believe something? There is a difference between scientific demands, and personal demands. I don't demand proof every time my wife tells me something.

Are you really insisting that all people accept only the doctrines of science?
 
  • #38
Ivan Seeking said:
Not necessarily. Faith is belief without proof. You are also assuming that people of faith perceive no tangible advantage in following their faith.

Absolutely not. There are both advantages and drawbacks. I could easily invent a new religion that would be far more benefitial than Christianity or Islam, both for individuals and for society as a whole - but that wouldn't make the doctrines of the religion true!
 
  • #39
Ivan Seeking said:
We can make a logical leap of faith based on personal experiences or the experiences of others. If we accept something blindly, then by definition there is no logic.
You lost me here.

What's the difference between "blindly" and "Rev. Puddles said so"?
 
  • #40
Ivan Seeking said:
For example, there are many Christians who don't believe most of what the bible says, and most Christians only believe certain aspects of biblical teachings.

What's the point of calling yourself a Christian then? I think you at least have to accept Jesus as the saviour of mankind, and that alone is a leap of faith that no personal experience can support.
 
  • #41
You are all referencing extremism and not simple belief. Here in the US, I think religious extremism is a problem, but that doesn't make all people of faith extremists.
 
  • #42
Gokul43201 said:
You lost me here.

What's the difference between "blindly" and "Rev. Puddles said so"?

Are you talking about doctrine or personal experiences here. Doctrine usually has little to do with faith. Faith is usually based on the perceived improvements in one's life.

One favorite sales point for many religions is very simple and straighforward. They tell you to try it. If you don't see an improvement in your life, then you can always walk away. In other words, you are encouraged to test their claims.
 
  • #43
This discussion will only remain open if

1) It is about all religions, not specific religions. Do not discuss what is good or bad about a specific religion.

The gray area here is that we do allow discussion of Islam since it is religion/law/politics.
BUT, you cannot say things like "they are evil, or stupid", etc... Anyone that does will receive an infraction.

2) That the political aspect of it is discussed. For instance, laws that are created/enforced/proposed as a result of a religion.

I will not tolerate anyone personally attacking another member that believes in religion.

I will not tolerate anyone personally attacking another member that does not believe in religion.
 
  • #44
arildno said:
Obviously. People who, for example, finds it perfectly all right and morally proper that other individuals (who happen not to share, say, their ideas about the origin of the universe) should be subject to never-ending, excruciating agony (for example by having their skin burnt to ashes, then get a new sown on in order to repeat the process ad infinitum), such individuals, IvanSeeking, ARE evil, and should be opposed.

In particular, they should be deprived the right to manipulate the brains of children (for example by forcibly adopting whatever children they have made among themselves). For starters.

I wouldn't use the word evil (a word that I find rather religious). They believe that they do God's will, and that WE are the evil ones.

Evil or not, there are people whose convictions are so dangerous that we may be right to kill them. At least stop them from getting weapons of mass destruction in their hands.
 
  • #45
As for believing the claims of others, I can make that logical choice based on my knowledge of the person. As I have said, if my wife tells me something, there is nothing illogical in taking it on faith as I have known her for 25 years. I have good reason to believe her.
 
  • #46
Ivan Seeking said:
No, I said that it can be logical to choose faith,

You don't choose what to believe in, do you? You believe what you believe because you have concluded that it's probable as a result of observations. You can't just choose to believe whatever you like. Try to believe in Santa for a moment.
 
  • #47
Evo said:
you cannot say things like "they are evil, or stupid", etc... Anyone that does will receive an infraction.

Is this a consequence of the new restricted freedom of speech?
 
  • #48
I think that criticism of religion is so important that even defamatory remarks should be considered permissible.
 
  • #49
Ivan, I don't see why it's of major importance to distinguish between religious moderates and religious fundies, because as long as there is religion present, people will vary in their interpretations of the holy books.

We must attack the problem at its roots. The problem isn't fundamentalists who believe every word of the Qu'ran or the Bible, the problem is lack of critical thinking. Critical thinking will never make you believe that you will get 72 virgins in the afterlife if you blow yourself and a bunch of infidels up in the air. Nor will it take you to believe that Jesus died on a cross and thereby took all human sin on his shoulders.

I'm not saying that there is no difference in the outcomes of such believes. What I'm saying is that there is no difference at the level of rationality. The two claims are equally absurd. In my opinion there is no hope for the future of our species as long as it's considered unpolite to criticize such beliefs. If we teach our children that certain beliefs shouldn't be questioned, you can bet your head that a fair share of the beliefs of the next generation will not contribute to a piecefull world.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
kasse said:
Is this a consequence of the new restricted freedom of speech?

You have freedom of speech.

What you don't have is freedom of consequence.
 
Back
Top