In the abstract, no, but some practices can be actively harmful from the perspective of people not of that religion.
This is a very important point, and you're right that I missed it completely in the analysis given above. I treated these practices as if they were always morally-neutral, when of course they aren't. Mea culpa.
I'd go a step farther, too, and argue there's even a problem when the morals of secular reason cast doubt on practices which don't affect people outside the faith, like not admitting women or gay men to the ordained priesthood.
See how well things go when atheists use a reductio ad absurdam argument involving invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and theists see this as mockery of their deeply-held beliefs...
There's a part of me still thinks that the theists are still just committing a category error as to the nature of their (our?) beliefs, but you're right that in focusing on what was likely to raise the ire of atheists I lost track of what might inflame the passions of my fellow religionists.
Original sin; are we naturally good, or naturally evil?
I can parse this either as a metaphysical claim about our formal nature or essence (cf. the transubstantiated communion wafer) or as a psychological/anthropological empirical claim about h. sapiens sapiens.
Do we have eternal souls, or do we return to nothingness when we die, or do we merge with the greater universe?
First we have to figure out what we mean by "we"; since the transcendental ego isn't an empirical entity, this seems like it would have to be a metaphysical question. Cf. the question "where do we go when we sleep?"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-17 05:42 pm (UTC)This is a very important point, and you're right that I missed it completely in the analysis given above. I treated these practices as if they were always morally-neutral, when of course they aren't. Mea culpa.
I'd go a step farther, too, and argue there's even a problem when the morals of secular reason cast doubt on practices which don't affect people outside the faith, like not admitting women or gay men to the ordained priesthood.
See how well things go when atheists use a reductio ad absurdam argument involving invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and theists see this as mockery of their deeply-held beliefs...
There's a part of me still thinks that the theists are still just committing a category error as to the nature of their (our?) beliefs, but you're right that in focusing on what was likely to raise the ire of atheists I lost track of what might inflame the passions of my fellow religionists.
Original sin; are we naturally good, or naturally evil?
I can parse this either as a metaphysical claim about our formal nature or essence (cf. the transubstantiated communion wafer) or as a psychological/anthropological empirical claim about h. sapiens sapiens.
Do we have eternal souls, or do we return to nothingness when we die, or do we merge with the greater universe?
First we have to figure out what we mean by "we"; since the transcendental ego isn't an empirical entity, this seems like it would have to be a metaphysical question. Cf. the question "where do we go when we sleep?"