Naw, it’s the easiest thing in the world. Theology is pure bafflegab. It’s a multisyllabic veneer — intended to resemble thought — applied to religious superstition.

I’ve always liked Mencken’s observation: “We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart”

>And it’s also why I have so little respect for many religious people — their intolerance and lack of empathy for women, gays and lesbians, people of other cultures, etc. makes it damn near impossible for me to respect them or their beliefs.

How many religious people do you really know who are unsympathetic to women qua women? No, what you undoubtedly have in mind is certain behaviors some women engage in. Politically charged subjects like abortion. You may be right about them, indeed I suspect we’d mostly agree on these subjects, but are they really just basic ideas, arrived at without reflection? Reflection on questions like “did God really command this?” and “do embryos have souls?” As far as I can tell, the things you claim as your “basic moral values” are answers to questions that can only sensibly be arrived at by reflecting on a lot of truth claims–which isn’t to say that they couldn’t be senselessly arrived at by osmosing the beliefs of lefty friends.

And my question returns: whatever your beliefs, are you really going to stick to your professed conviction that you don’t really have any idea whether your beliefs or true? Honestly, I’d love to see you admit that it’s just not possible to figure out whether what you just said is false. Or that no matter how certain you feel about what you just said, you can’t be certain in any objective sense that it’s true. Or (and especially) that there are convincing lines of argument against what you just said. All that should come naturally to you if you really meant what you said in the linked post.

db

Ah, the “Courtier’s Reply”

Sorry dude. The emperor has no clothes, and all the sophistry in the world won’t cahnge that.

1.) I’m not saying we shouldn’t worry too much about whether a belief is true. We should, and I do, which is why I don’t believe things that I think are false. Instead, I’m arguing that when it comes to respecting a person’s beliefs, and a person for his or her beliefs, what matters is what they do with them.
2.) I’m not arguing that it’s just a matter of perception. I’m arguing that the fallibility of human reasoning (which is much greater, I suspect, than you are aware) makes judging the truth and falsity of things as complex as most theology incredibly difficult, if not impossible, from an objective standpoint. That doesn’t mean we can’t make judgments, it just means that as a condition for respect, it’s a pretty poor one. Perhaps that means, “It’s just perception to you,” but if that’s the case, you’re definitely in no position to be judging other people’s beliefs on their truth and falsity.
3.) Those aren’t my political views I’m talking about. They’re my basic moral values — my ethics. If you don’t believe we should judge people’s behavior based on our values, what do you suggest we judge them on? And since it’s people’s behavior that I think is important, that’s the way I’m going to assign respect.