I sense that some of the disagreements that I have with Paul Graham are deeply fundamental and have to do with the fabric and meaning of our existence. First of all, I'm a religious person. This I have seen immediately qualifies me for ridicule from some on a forum such as this, as believing in God is seen as the logical equivalent to believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. If you think I am totally deluded because of my beliefs, I would ask that you at least show respect for the fact that I am devoted to them and value them sincerely.
I'll pick one thing for now. In the part about sex and drugs, Paul mentions that parents' desires for instilling confidence in their children conflict with their desires to teach children that they shouldn't trust their own judgment.
Teaching a child to avoid doing the wrong or evil thing does not have to be a matter of making the child submit to the parents' will. If a parent teaches a child correct principles (and yes I believe that there are fundamentally correct and incorrect principles), than the child can understand these not only logically, but morally (or spiritually, whatever you prefer). A child can and will be tempted to dabble in things like illicit sex and drugs. However, if that child has been properly taught, then he or she will know that those temptations go against the child's better judgment. There are two forces at work in a child's mind here. One is the natural desire to take the easy way and receive the certain immediate pleasure, the other is the desire to be wiser and live by a higher standard. A parent can instill confidence in a child by showing them that they trust the child to make the right choices. If a child makes a wrong choice, it is not because they used their own judgment instead of their parents', it is because they failed to use their own judgment. They can often feel that they have betrayed the trust that was given them.
Many of you may dismiss this as sentimental hogwash or religious tripe. You may say that this judgment that I describe a child learning from his or her parents comes about through brainwashing and lies. I only ask you to keep an open mind and consider my point of view carefully. Many others share it, though maybe not here.
I think it is possible to have interesting and useful discussions about the nature of who and what we are that includes viewpoints that are religious, non-religious and 'other'. Message boards seem to be very bad places for them.
These are the sorts of things that people have put a lot of time and effort into thinking about and wrestling with - and there are very often emotional personal experiences tied up in those beliefs. On message boards, however, you usually just want to spend a short amount of time making relatively concise statements. Not the best format for getting across a complex worldview. This creates the "Amazon rating effect" where in order to influence the "overall results" you feel compelled to rate things either 5-stars or 1-star even though almost everyone holds 2-4 star beliefs.
Don't worry sofal, you're not alone. No matter how rational the scientific view of the world is, there is nothing in it that precludes the existence of a Higher Being that made it that way!
Also, whether you view the fundamental moral principles as divinely given or the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of society, they are critical for children to have.
I agree that there is right and wrong, even though I'm not religious. I agree you can try to teach your children right and wrong. I disagree that just because you have good intentions and are trying to teach good values, that this means that what you are telling your children is truthful.
Most parents exaggerate the danger of sex, drugs (including alcohol), and video games (these have taken the place of rock and roll). There's a good reason for this - children probably wouldn't believe you if you said "Well, these can be good in moderation, but you don't have the judgement to tell what moderation is yet." So you might be lying with good intentions, and good effects, but you're still lying.
PS: I can understand how you'd feel attacked by someone implying a belief in God which you hold dear is equivalent to belief in the easter bunny. Instead, imagine that atheists see your belief in God as equivalent to belief in Ganesh, the Indian elephant god. If people tried to justify things in terms of the will of Ganesh, you would look at them somewhat strangely and would certainly not be swayed by their arguments. That's how atheists feel about your God: the way you feel about every other god but yours.
I can definitely see your points. Having good intentions and trying to teach good values is a good start, but it certainly doesn't imply that what you're teaching is truthful.
My dad was quite opposed to video games, and he even tried to get me to stop playing Quake after the shootings at Columbine (didn't work). Parents can misunderstand the uses and dangers of technology that never existed when they were young. It's easier for them to just dismiss the whole rather than try to understand. I think it's much better to stress the underlying values rather than the superficial rules or my own faulty interpretation of how to apply those values.
You're right that I would not be swayed by people justifying things in terms of the will of Ganesh. In fact, I would not be swayed by mere arguments in terms of the will of any supernatural being. I do not see gullibility as a positive trait of any human being, religious or not. I certainly don't expect to find it here, and that is a very good thing. If I justify my arguments in terms of the will of the god I believe in, then they are weak indeed. I think there is a common ground where we can reason with each other. My defensive comments about the anticipated anti-religious tone here were not appropriate or at least not in tune with the "common ground" feel.
>f you think I am totally deluded because of my beliefs, I would ask that you at least show respect for the fact that I am devoted to them and value them sincerely.
Belief qua belief does not deserve respect. That is a self-serving myth told by believing people.
How about civility? That's kind of like respect. Do I "deserve" any civility? If it's a myth and a self-serving lie to think that you should show respect for other people's beliefs, count me as one of the self-serving liars.
If I were having a conversation with a friend I would prefer Prrometheus' comments to yours. If I were told in response to something I said: "Belief qua belief does not deserve respect", first of all I would think "Alright! Half-baked Latin! That justifies the price we paid for these coffees!" but also I would be happy to be given the chance to advance the conversation. I would have been given a choice either to explain to my friend that I had not got my point across and to try again, or I could discuss why "belief qua belief" does deserve respect.
However, if the conversation began with my friend telling me "you will probably just dismiss this" and especially "many others believe this" I would feel insulted/dismissed.
I think you're right about that. I've made a few defensive comments in anticipation of and in reaction to antagonism. It's pretty weak of me to be defensive and reactionary in that way. I didn't intend it to insult or dismiss others' viewpoints, yet it did. Thanks for that comment.
Thanks for taking that in the way I intended. I think it is understandable. A "discussion" on the net can feel like a hundred people quickly walking by and taking a quick potshot rather than a genuine exchange of opinions.
I think you should show respect for others' beliefs, at least to the extent of not ridiculing them, except when those beliefs are themselves the topic of conversation. In that case, there's really no way to have the discussion without being willing to disagree.
When talking about lies people tell each other, the beliefs are the topic, whether or not you believe they are lies or truths. If you don't want to have other people weigh your beliefs in such a context, I would suggest not mentioning them during such a discussion. There are beliefs I have which I'm sure most don't share, but which I don't feel the need to defend (anymore) at every opportunity. For example, as an atheist, I wouldn't typically go to a Christian forum and announce that God doesn't exist, unless I were prepared to have my views ridiculed.
Please don't take this as meaning I think you shouldn't discuss your beliefs in this thread, but only that I think you shouldn't try to influence others not to debate you honestly by implying they're being uncivil.
I agree that belief by itself does not deserve respect, and I upvoted you since your sentence addresses a common defense and should be highlighted.
But, no one has beliefs independent from any kind of cause or reason. So, just because someone says you should respect what they think because they believe it does not mean you should reject their belief due to bad justification.
Another issue is that religion is better understood when someone has grown up within one. It's alot easier to understand the lack of religion. The same things with a number of affections that the educated consider false, such as patriotism, true love, etc.
So, really, if a person keeps their child away from things like this so they can make an informed decision when they are older actually can limit their ability to make an informed decision.
"...believing in God is seen as the logical equivalent to believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. If you think I am totally deluded because of my beliefs, I would ask that you at least show respect for the fact that I am devoted to them and value them sincerely."
Do you not see the irony here? Would you be making this heartfelt plea for us to respect your beliefs if you did believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?
Of course not -- because a belief doesn't deserve "respect", no matter sincerely its followers may value it. A belief deserves either support or skepticism.
The adherents of every belief, however, deserve respect. As do you. Part of that respect involves an honest description of how unlikely your beliefs are to be grounded in truth.
I'll pick one thing for now. In the part about sex and drugs, Paul mentions that parents' desires for instilling confidence in their children conflict with their desires to teach children that they shouldn't trust their own judgment.
Teaching a child to avoid doing the wrong or evil thing does not have to be a matter of making the child submit to the parents' will. If a parent teaches a child correct principles (and yes I believe that there are fundamentally correct and incorrect principles), than the child can understand these not only logically, but morally (or spiritually, whatever you prefer). A child can and will be tempted to dabble in things like illicit sex and drugs. However, if that child has been properly taught, then he or she will know that those temptations go against the child's better judgment. There are two forces at work in a child's mind here. One is the natural desire to take the easy way and receive the certain immediate pleasure, the other is the desire to be wiser and live by a higher standard. A parent can instill confidence in a child by showing them that they trust the child to make the right choices. If a child makes a wrong choice, it is not because they used their own judgment instead of their parents', it is because they failed to use their own judgment. They can often feel that they have betrayed the trust that was given them.
Many of you may dismiss this as sentimental hogwash or religious tripe. You may say that this judgment that I describe a child learning from his or her parents comes about through brainwashing and lies. I only ask you to keep an open mind and consider my point of view carefully. Many others share it, though maybe not here.