Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed May 21, 2025 10:25 pm**

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed May 21, 2025 4:27 pm Let’s stop pretending. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not noble. It’s not progressive. It’s not enlightened. It is a legal enshrinement of mass delusion—a global permission slip for humans to believe whatever the hell they want, no matter how ignorant, dangerous, or outright false, and demand respect for it.

Article 18 of the UDHR is no more of a "...legal enshrinement of mass delusion..." than is the "Golden Rule" suggested in the Bible.

Shall we rid ourselves of that sappy, bleeding-heart notion also?

Though I suppose if you were a sadomasochist, then that ol'...

"...Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..."

...could take on an entirely different meaning than what the author intended, which seems to be exactly what you are doing with your contemptuous interpretation of article 18.
_______

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2025 4:42 pm**

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed May 21, 2025 6:28 pm
ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Wed May 21, 2025 6:18 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Wed May 21, 2025 4:27 pm Let’s stop pretending. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not noble. It’s not progressive. It’s not enlightened. It is a legal enshrinement of mass delusion—a global permission slip for humans to believe whatever the hell they want, no matter how ignorant, dangerous, or outright false, and demand respect for it.

It’s the reason a child can be taught that hell awaits them for thinking critically. It’s the reason grown adults can mutilate genitals in the name of a god and call it “culture.” It’s why religious institutions can hoard wealth, obstruct science, and indoctrinate billions—with impunity.

We don’t give legal protection to conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, or schizophrenic delusions. But slap the word “religion” on any irrational belief system and suddenly it’s sacred. It’s protected. It’s untouchable. That is insanity, institutionalized.

Freedom of thought is one thing. But freedom to teach lies, manipulate minds, and sow conflict under the banner of “religion” is not a right—it’s a societal rot. Article 18 is a coward’s clause, shielding dogma from accountability.

It’s time we stop coddling mythology and start defending reality. Article 18 has to go—before it drags the rest of us down with it.

We don’t give legal protection to conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, or schizophrenic delusions

How is that true? It certainly isn't true in the US. More than a few politicians have leveraged their "freedom to teach lies, manipulate minds, and sow conflict" as a basis for getting elected to public office - especially within the past decade or so.

The problem is much broader than "religion" per se. Religion is a product of delusion. Wouldn't you do better to identify the underlying cause of delusion and to address that instead?
Exactly. You're pointing at the real dragon under the floorboards, and I’m glad someone did.

You're right—the rot runs deeper than religion. Religion is just the most socially accepted strain of the broader disease: unfalsifiable, unaccountable belief. And yes, that disease has metastasized well beyond pulpits and temples. It’s in the voting booth, in the anti-vax rallies, in climate denial, in QAnon fever dreams… It’s everywhere people are told they have the “right” to believe anything—and worse, that such beliefs must be respected.

But here's why I went after Article 18 specifically: it’s the flagship. It's the legal linchpin that makes irrational belief not just tolerated, but sacred. It sets the precedent. If we continue to enshrine religion as something untouchable—immune to challenge, critique, or consequence—then of course pseudoscience and political conspiracy follow right behind. Same method, different myths.

So yes, we should attack delusion at the root. But Article 18 is the constitutional cover story. It gives delusion a halo and a podium. And until we’re brave enough to call that out for what it is, we’ll keep confusing superstition with virtue—and mistaking respect for complicity.

You want to go after the deeper cause? I’m with you. But we start by pulling the pin on Article 18. It's not the whole bomb, but it's the fuse.

Your response doesn't seem to add up to a coherent whole.

On one hand you seem to agree, but on the other much of your verbiage continues to indicate that "religion" in and of itself is at the heart of the underlying problem: "...that disease has metastasized well beyond pulpits and temples".

As if the roots of the disease are in the "pulpits and temples" and has subsequently spread to "the voting booth, in the anti-vax rallies, in climate denial, in QAnon fever dreams…"; "then of course pseudoscience and political conspiracy follow right behind"; and so on.

I submit to you that even there were no such thing as "religion", "the voting booth, in the anti-vax rallies, in climate denial, in QAnon fever dreams.. pseudoscience and political conspiracy" would still be problems.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2025 4:51 pm**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed May 21, 2025 6:44 pm
ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Wed May 21, 2025 6:18 pm The problem is much broader than "religion" per se.
You are currently exercising your rights under Article 18 and 19 to assert/express your opinion of a "problem".

If BigDork had his way you'd have to be held intellectually accountable to the standard of having to prove your claim is true...

People should be held intellectual accountable to the standard of being able to at least make a well-reasoned case for their beliefs when those beliefs are presented to others as true.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2025 4:57 pm**

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 4:42 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Wed May 21, 2025 6:28 pm
ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Wed May 21, 2025 6:18 pm We don’t give legal protection to conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, or schizophrenic delusions

How is that true? It certainly isn't true in the US. More than a few politicians have leveraged their "freedom to teach lies, manipulate minds, and sow conflict" as a basis for getting elected to public office - especially within the past decade or so.

The problem is much broader than "religion" per se. Religion is a product of delusion. Wouldn't you do better to identify the underlying cause of delusion and to address that instead?
Exactly. You're pointing at the real dragon under the floorboards, and I’m glad someone did.

You're right—the rot runs deeper than religion. Religion is just the most socially accepted strain of the broader disease: unfalsifiable, unaccountable belief. And yes, that disease has metastasized well beyond pulpits and temples. It’s in the voting booth, in the anti-vax rallies, in climate denial, in QAnon fever dreams… It’s everywhere people are told they have the “right” to believe anything—and worse, that such beliefs must be respected.

But here's why I went after Article 18 specifically: it’s the flagship. It's the legal linchpin that makes irrational belief not just tolerated, but sacred. It sets the precedent. If we continue to enshrine religion as something untouchable—immune to challenge, critique, or consequence—then of course pseudoscience and political conspiracy follow right behind. Same method, different myths.

So yes, we should attack delusion at the root. But Article 18 is the constitutional cover story. It gives delusion a halo and a podium. And until we’re brave enough to call that out for what it is, we’ll keep confusing superstition with virtue—and mistaking respect for complicity.

You want to go after the deeper cause? I’m with you. But we start by pulling the pin on Article 18. It's not the whole bomb, but it's the fuse.
Your response doesn't seem to add up to a coherent whole.

On one hand you seem to agree, but on the other much of your verbiage continues to indicate that "religion" in and of itself is at the heart of the underlying problem: "...that disease has metastasized well beyond pulpits and temples".

As if the roots of the disease are in the "pulpits and temples" and has subsequently spread to "the voting booth, in the anti-vax rallies, in climate denial, in QAnon fever dreams…"; "then of course pseudoscience and political conspiracy follow right behind"; and so on.

I submit to you that even there were no such thing as "religion", "the voting booth, in the anti-vax rallies, in climate denial, in QAnon fever dreams.. pseudoscience and political conspiracy" would still be problems.

You're absolutely right to press on this—because clarity matters when we’re talking about foundational issues like this. And yes, let’s clean up the confusion here.

I’m not claiming that religion caused all delusion. What I’m saying is that religion is the most socially entrenched and legally protected version of the deeper problem: the normalization of belief without evidence. It's not the root of the tree—it's the oldest and thickest branch, the one society waters and shields from the axe, even when it's rotting.

You’re correct: if religion vanished tomorrow, the human tendency toward cognitive bias, tribalism, and motivated reasoning would still be here. Anti-vax conspiracies don’t need scripture. Flat-Earth theories don’t need a priest. But here’s the crucial distinction: we don't give those other delusions institutional reverence, legal immunity, or mandatory respect. We don’t fund them with tax exemptions. We don’t let them run schools or shape laws—at least not openly.

Religion, uniquely, is a cultural training ground for accepting unprovable claims as virtuous. And once that epistemological muscle is trained—once we’re told it’s good and noble to believe things “on faith,” without evidence—then yes, we’re wide open to every QAnon, climate-denial, pseudoscience parasite that comes along. Religion didn't invent the bug, but it absolutely weakens the immune system.

So you're right: the root cause is psychological—how human brains handle uncertainty and narrative. But religion is the mechanism that makes the disease respectable. That’s why Article 18 matters. It's not about banning thought—it's about refusing to legally privilege institutionalized delusion.

Religion isn't the whole problem. But it's the gateway drug. And Article 18 keeps it legal.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2025 5:31 pm**

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 4:51 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed May 21, 2025 6:44 pm
ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Wed May 21, 2025 6:18 pm The problem is much broader than "religion" per se.
You are currently exercising your rights under Article 18 and 19 to assert/express your opinion of a "problem".

If BigDork had his way you'd have to be held intellectually accountable to the standard of having to prove your claim is true...
People should be held intellectual accountable to the standard of being able to at least make a well-reasoned case for their beliefs when those beliefs are presented to others as true.

Can you demonstrate what that looks like in practice?

Is it true that people should be held accountable (as you say)?

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2025 5:31 pm**

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 4:57 pm Article 18 keeps it legal.

How?

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2025 5:42 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 5:31 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 4:57 pm Article 18 keeps it legal.
How?

How? I’m glad you asked—because this is where the polite fiction cracks wide open.

Article 18 doesn’t just say people can think what they want in private. That’s not the issue. The issue is in the second half of the sentence—the part that quietly hands over a legal force field:

“…freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

That word—manifest—is the legal Pandora’s box. It opens the door to public action based on private delusion, and demands that we treat the result as sacrosanct. So if your belief leads you to deny your child medical care, or circumcise an infant without consent, or teach creationism in a science class, or refuse service to someone because of their sexuality—Article 18 stands ready to say, “Well, if it’s religious, that’s your right.”

It’s a get-out-of-jail-free card for actions that, if motivated by any other baseless belief system, would be challenged or even prosecuted. Imagine someone doing those things under the banner of astrology or a UFO cult—society would step in. But wrap the same behavior in theology, and suddenly it’s protected expression.

That’s how Article 18 keeps it legal—not by what it says on its face, but by what it prevents us from challenging. It puts dogma on a pedestal, beyond scrutiny, and turns harmful acts into protected rituals.

So yeah, Henry—it keeps it legal by immunizing irrational public behavior from rational legal challenge… as long as it comes dressed in robes and hymns.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2025 6:16 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 5:31 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 4:57 pm Article 18 keeps it legal.
How?

The correct answer is: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a legally binding document. It is not law. So: Article 18 does not, can not, keep it legal.

Now this...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

..is an altogether different matter. The 1st has legal weight. It does keep it legal. Mebbe you oughta rail against that one instead.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2025 6:28 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 6:16 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 5:31 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 4:57 pm Article 18 keeps it legal.
How?
The correct answer is: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a legally binding document. It is not law. So: Article 18 does not, can not, keep it legal.

Now this...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
..is an altogether different matter. The 1st has legal weight. It does keep it legal. Mebbe you oughta rail against that one instead.

Fair point, Henry—on the technicality. The UDHR isn’t legally binding in itself, you’re absolutely right about that. But here’s where the rubber meets the road, and why I still stand by “Article 18 keeps it legal” in the real-world, functional sense.

While the UDHR isn’t enforceable law, it’s been the foundation for a vast web of actual legal instruments, international treaties, national constitutions, and human rights statutes. Article 18’s language has been baked into everything from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which is binding) to domestic law in dozens of countries. In many places, it's cited by courts, shaped policy, and defined legal protections. So no, Article 18 isn’t a statute—but it’s the source code for a global system of laws that treat religious belief as untouchable.

And sure, you want to bring the U.S. First Amendment into it? Fine. Let’s talk about how that “free exercise” clause—lifted in spirit straight from Article 18—has been used to:

Let employers deny healthcare coverage for contraception based on religious objections.
Let religious schools receive public funds while discriminating in admissions or hiring.
Let parents “homeschool” children into anti-scientific ignorance under the guise of belief.
Let literal child abusers escape accountability in the name of “faith healing.”

So yeah, the First Amendment has legal teeth. But those teeth were sharpened on the whetstone of Article 18-style reasoning. It’s the same deference, the same structure—belief over evidence, rights without responsibility, sacred over secular.

You want to draw a line between the UDHR and the First Amendment? That’s fair. But I’m telling you: the ideology that Article 18 codifies absolutely keeps this nonsense alive in law, policy, and courtrooms around the world. It may not write the laws, but it damn sure writes the blueprint.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2025 7:17 pm**

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed May 21, 2025 4:27 pm Let’s stop pretending. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not noble. It’s not progressive. It’s not enlightened. It is a legal enshrinement of mass delusion—a global permission slip for humans to believe whatever the hell they want, no matter how ignorant, dangerous, or outright false, and demand respect for it.

It’s the reason a child can be taught that hell awaits them for thinking critically. It’s the reason grown adults can mutilate genitals in the name of a god and call it “culture.” It’s why religious institutions can hoard wealth, obstruct science, and indoctrinate billions—with impunity.

We don’t give legal protection to conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, or schizophrenic delusions. But slap the word “religion” on any irrational belief system and suddenly it’s sacred. It’s protected. It’s untouchable. That is insanity, institutionalized.

Freedom of thought is one thing. But freedom to teach lies, manipulate minds, and sow conflict under the banner of “religion” is not a right—it’s a societal rot. Article 18 is a coward’s clause, shielding dogma from accountability.

It’s time we stop coddling mythology and start defending reality. Article 18 has to go—before it drags the rest of us down with it.

Some sorts of religion are more politically authoritarian, more authoritarian as to the literally historical truth of their foundation myth, and more authoritarian concerning their rituals . There is a sort of spectrum with Alamite Islam and Wahhabi Islam at the most authoritarian end; and Unitarianism , Quakers, and Humanists at the least authoritarian end. Some Muslims are less authoritarian than some Christians. Ijtihad within Islam may become more mainstream.

While schools may be monitored for lack of indoctrination, it's not ethically possible to monitor parents and families.
While your censure is correct and reasonable Article 18 is better than the alternative. The religious quest was never easy. The quest for good was never easy.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2025 7:27 pm**

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 6:28 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 6:16 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 5:31 pm

How?
The correct answer is: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a legally binding document. It is not law. So: Article 18 does not, can not, keep it legal.

Now this...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
..is an altogether different matter. The 1st has legal weight. It does keep it legal. Mebbe you oughta rail against that one instead.
Fair point, Henry—on the technicality. The UDHR isn’t legally binding in itself, you’re absolutely right about that. But here’s where the rubber meets the road, and why I still stand by “Article 18 keeps it legal” in the real-world, functional sense.

While the UDHR isn’t enforceable law, it’s been the foundation for a vast web of actual legal instruments, international treaties, national constitutions, and human rights statutes. Article 18’s language has been baked into everything from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which is binding) to domestic law in dozens of countries. In many places, it's cited by courts, shaped policy, and defined legal protections. So no, Article 18 isn’t a statute—but it’s the source code for a global system of laws that treat religious belief as untouchable.

And sure, you want to bring the U.S. First Amendment into it? Fine. Let’s talk about how that “free exercise” clause—lifted in spirit straight from Article 18—has been used to:

Let employers deny healthcare coverage for contraception based on religious objections.

Let religious schools receive public funds while discriminating in admissions or hiring.

Let parents “homeschool” children into anti-scientific ignorance under the guise of belief.

Let literal child abusers escape accountability in the name of “faith healing.”

So yeah, the First Amendment has legal teeth. But those teeth were sharpened on the whetstone of Article 18-style reasoning. It’s the same deference, the same structure—belief over evidence, rights without responsibility, sacred over secular.

You want to draw a line between the UDHR and the First Amendment? That’s fair. But I’m telling you: the ideology that Article 18 codifies absolutely keeps this nonsense alive in law, policy, and courtrooms around the world. It may not write the laws, but it damn sure writes the blueprint.

The UDHR is a tool for creating peace and other civilised virtues. Like any tool when it gets into the hands of bad men it can be dangerous.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2025 7:43 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 7:17 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Wed May 21, 2025 4:27 pm Let’s stop pretending. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not noble. It’s not progressive. It’s not enlightened. It is a legal enshrinement of mass delusion—a global permission slip for humans to believe whatever the hell they want, no matter how ignorant, dangerous, or outright false, and demand respect for it.

It’s the reason a child can be taught that hell awaits them for thinking critically. It’s the reason grown adults can mutilate genitals in the name of a god and call it “culture.” It’s why religious institutions can hoard wealth, obstruct science, and indoctrinate billions—with impunity.

We don’t give legal protection to conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, or schizophrenic delusions. But slap the word “religion” on any irrational belief system and suddenly it’s sacred. It’s protected. It’s untouchable. That is insanity, institutionalized.

Freedom of thought is one thing. But freedom to teach lies, manipulate minds, and sow conflict under the banner of “religion” is not a right—it’s a societal rot. Article 18 is a coward’s clause, shielding dogma from accountability.

It’s time we stop coddling mythology and start defending reality. Article 18 has to go—before it drags the rest of us down with it.
Some sorts of religion are more politically authoritarian, more authoritarian as to the literally historical truth of their foundation myth, and more authoritarian concerning their rituals . There is a sort of spectrum with Alamite Islam and Wahhabi Islam at the most authoritarian end; and Unitarianism , Quakers, and Humanists at the least authoritarian end. Some Muslims are less authoritarian than some Christians. Ijtihad within Islam may become more mainstream.

While schools may be monitored for lack of indoctrination, it's not ethically possible to monitor parents and families.
While your censure is correct and reasonable Article 18 is better than the alternative. The religious quest was never easy. The quest for good was never easy.

Belinda, I hear you—and your nuance is appreciated. Yes, there’s a spectrum. Yes, some forms of belief are more authoritarian, more rigid, more toxic than others. But here’s the problem: Article 18 makes no such distinction. It doesn’t say “freedom of benign belief,” or “freedom of non-authoritarian worship.” It gives equal protection to the Quaker pacifist and the fundamentalist who thinks apostates should be executed.

That’s the heart of the issue. When the law protects belief systems without requiring accountability for their consequences, it creates a loophole big enough to drive oppression, pseudoscience, and child abuse through—without ever touching the brakes.

And you’re right again: we can’t monitor homes. But what we can do is stop giving institutional protection and respectability to ideas just because they wear the label “religion.” We don’t have to criminalize belief—but we absolutely must stop insulating it from challenge.

The quest for good shouldn’t be easy. But it also shouldn’t be legally handicapped by a rulebook that puts mythology above reality. Article 18 isn’t a shield for the vulnerable—it’s a shield for dangerous immunity. And the longer we hide behind the comfort of “better than the alternative,” the longer we delay building something that’s actually honest.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2025 7:44 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 7:27 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 6:28 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 6:16 pm

The correct answer is: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a legally binding document. It is not law. So: Article 18 does not, can not, keep it legal.

Now this.....is an altogether different matter. The 1st has legal weight. It does keep it legal. Mebbe you oughta rail against that one instead.
Fair point, Henry—on the technicality. The UDHR isn’t legally binding in itself, you’re absolutely right about that. But here’s where the rubber meets the road, and why I still stand by “Article 18 keeps it legal” in the real-world, functional sense.

While the UDHR isn’t enforceable law, it’s been the foundation for a vast web of actual legal instruments, international treaties, national constitutions, and human rights statutes. Article 18’s language has been baked into everything from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which is binding) to domestic law in dozens of countries. In many places, it's cited by courts, shaped policy, and defined legal protections. So no, Article 18 isn’t a statute—but it’s the source code for a global system of laws that treat religious belief as untouchable.

And sure, you want to bring the U.S. First Amendment into it? Fine. Let’s talk about how that “free exercise” clause—lifted in spirit straight from Article 18—has been used to:

Let employers deny healthcare coverage for contraception based on religious objections.

Let religious schools receive public funds while discriminating in admissions or hiring.

Let parents “homeschool” children into anti-scientific ignorance under the guise of belief.

Let literal child abusers escape accountability in the name of “faith healing.”

So yeah, the First Amendment has legal teeth. But those teeth were sharpened on the whetstone of Article 18-style reasoning. It’s the same deference, the same structure—belief over evidence, rights without responsibility, sacred over secular.

You want to draw a line between the UDHR and the First Amendment? That’s fair. But I’m telling you: the ideology that Article 18 codifies absolutely keeps this nonsense alive in law, policy, and courtrooms around the world. It may not write the laws, but it damn sure writes the blueprint.

The UDHR is a tool for creating peace and other civilised virtues. Like any tool when it gets into the hands of bad men it can be dangerous.

Exactly—and when a tool is consistently misused to shield harm, it’s time to redesign the tool. Article 18, as written, empowers dogma with diplomatic immunity. That’s not peace—that’s appeasement.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2025 8:38 pm**

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 4:57 pm
ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 4:42 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Wed May 21, 2025 6:28 pm

Exactly. You're pointing at the real dragon under the floorboards, and I’m glad someone did.

You're right—the rot runs deeper than religion. Religion is just the most socially accepted strain of the broader disease: unfalsifiable, unaccountable belief. And yes, that disease has metastasized well beyond pulpits and temples. It’s in the voting booth, in the anti-vax rallies, in climate denial, in QAnon fever dreams… It’s everywhere people are told they have the “right” to believe anything—and worse, that such beliefs must be respected.

But here's why I went after Article 18 specifically: it’s the flagship. It's the legal linchpin that makes irrational belief not just tolerated, but sacred. It sets the precedent. If we continue to enshrine religion as something untouchable—immune to challenge, critique, or consequence—then of course pseudoscience and political conspiracy follow right behind. Same method, different myths.

So yes, we should attack delusion at the root. But Article 18 is the constitutional cover story. It gives delusion a halo and a podium. And until we’re brave enough to call that out for what it is, we’ll keep confusing superstition with virtue—and mistaking respect for complicity.

You want to go after the deeper cause? I’m with you. But we start by pulling the pin on Article 18. It's not the whole bomb, but it's the fuse.
Your response doesn't seem to add up to a coherent whole.

On one hand you seem to agree, but on the other much of your verbiage continues to indicate that "religion" in and of itself is at the heart of the underlying problem: "...that disease has metastasized well beyond pulpits and temples".

As if the roots of the disease are in the "pulpits and temples" and has subsequently spread to "the voting booth, in the anti-vax rallies, in climate denial, in QAnon fever dreams…"; "then of course pseudoscience and political conspiracy follow right behind"; and so on.

I submit to you that even there were no such thing as "religion", "the voting booth, in the anti-vax rallies, in climate denial, in QAnon fever dreams.. pseudoscience and political conspiracy" would still be problems.
You're absolutely right to press on this—because clarity matters when we’re talking about foundational issues like this. And yes, let’s clean up the confusion here.

I’m not claiming that religion caused all delusion. What I’m saying is that religion is the most socially entrenched and legally protected version of the deeper problem: the normalization of belief without evidence. It's not the root of the tree—it's the oldest and thickest branch, the one society waters and shields from the axe, even when it's rotting.

You’re correct: if religion vanished tomorrow, the human tendency toward cognitive bias, tribalism, and motivated reasoning would still be here. Anti-vax conspiracies don’t need scripture. Flat-Earth theories don’t need a priest. But here’s the crucial distinction: we don't give those other delusions institutional reverence, legal immunity, or mandatory respect. We don’t fund them with tax exemptions. We don’t let them run schools or shape laws—at least not openly.

Religion, uniquely, is a cultural training ground for accepting unprovable claims as virtuous. And once that epistemological muscle is trained—once we’re told it’s good and noble to believe things “on faith,” without evidence—then yes, we’re wide open to every QAnon, climate-denial, pseudoscience parasite that comes along. Religion didn't invent the bug, but it absolutely weakens the immune system.

So you're right: the root cause is psychological—how human brains handle uncertainty and narrative. But religion is the mechanism that makes the disease respectable. That’s why Article 18 matters. It's not about banning thought—it's about refusing to legally privilege institutionalized delusion.

Religion isn't the whole problem. But it's the gateway drug. And Article 18 keeps it legal.

Religion, uniquely, is a cultural training ground for accepting unprovable claims as virtuous. And once that epistemological muscle is trained—once we’re told it’s good and noble to believe things “on faith,” without evidence—then yes, we’re wide open to every QAnon, climate-denial, pseudoscience parasite that comes along.

From what I can tell, that "epistemological muscle" doesn't need to be trained. It arrives that way "out of the box", so to speak. That said, it needs to be "untrained". Also, there are other schools of thought that serve to strengthen that "muscle" as well.

Let's try this another way.

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

From <https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universa ... man-rights>

Following is an altered version of Article 18 with Article 19 left unaltered.

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and beliefs; this right includes freedom to change his beliefs, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his beliefs in teaching, practice and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

I still see the same problems in granting those rights without limitations.

Posted: **Thu May 22, 2025 8:58 pm**

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 8:38 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 4:57 pm
ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 4:42 pm

Your response doesn't seem to add up to a coherent whole.

On one hand you seem to agree, but on the other much of your verbiage continues to indicate that "religion" in and of itself is at the heart of the underlying problem: "...that disease has metastasized well beyond pulpits and temples".

As if the roots of the disease are in the "pulpits and temples" and has subsequently spread to "the voting booth, in the anti-vax rallies, in climate denial, in QAnon fever dreams…"; "then of course pseudoscience and political conspiracy follow right behind"; and so on.

I submit to you that even there were no such thing as "religion", "the voting booth, in the anti-vax rallies, in climate denial, in QAnon fever dreams.. pseudoscience and political conspiracy" would still be problems.
You're absolutely right to press on this—because clarity matters when we’re talking about foundational issues like this. And yes, let’s clean up the confusion here.

I’m not claiming that religion caused all delusion. What I’m saying is that religion is the most socially entrenched and legally protected version of the deeper problem: the normalization of belief without evidence. It's not the root of the tree—it's the oldest and thickest branch, the one society waters and shields from the axe, even when it's rotting.

You’re correct: if religion vanished tomorrow, the human tendency toward cognitive bias, tribalism, and motivated reasoning would still be here. Anti-vax conspiracies don’t need scripture. Flat-Earth theories don’t need a priest. But here’s the crucial distinction: we don't give those other delusions institutional reverence, legal immunity, or mandatory respect. We don’t fund them with tax exemptions. We don’t let them run schools or shape laws—at least not openly.

Religion, uniquely, is a cultural training ground for accepting unprovable claims as virtuous. And once that epistemological muscle is trained—once we’re told it’s good and noble to believe things “on faith,” without evidence—then yes, we’re wide open to every QAnon, climate-denial, pseudoscience parasite that comes along. Religion didn't invent the bug, but it absolutely weakens the immune system.

So you're right: the root cause is psychological—how human brains handle uncertainty and narrative. But religion is the mechanism that makes the disease respectable. That’s why Article 18 matters. It's not about banning thought—it's about refusing to legally privilege institutionalized delusion.

Religion isn't the whole problem. But it's the gateway drug. And Article 18 keeps it legal.
Religion, uniquely, is a cultural training ground for accepting unprovable claims as virtuous. And once that epistemological muscle is trained—once we’re told it’s good and noble to believe things “on faith,” without evidence—then yes, we’re wide open to every QAnon, climate-denial, pseudoscience parasite that comes along.

From what I can tell, that "epistemological muscle" doesn't need to be trained. It arrives that way "out of the box", so to speak. That said, it needs to be "untrained". Also, there are other systems of belief/thought that serve to strengthen that "muscle" as well.

Let's try this.

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

From <https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universa ... man-rights>
Following is an altered version of Article 18 with Article 19 left unaltered.

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and beliefs; this right includes freedom to change his beliefs, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his beliefs in teaching, practice and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

I still see the same problems in granting those rights without qualifications.

Yes—exactly. That’s the crux of it. Belief “out of the box” is a feature of human cognition. We come wired for narrative, for agency detection, for pattern over-perception. It’s adaptive in the evolutionary sense—but deeply vulnerable in the modern one. So yes, the muscle is there from the start… but systems like religion train us to overuse it and never question the strain.

Your revision to Article 18 is definitely cleaner—dropping “religion” in favor of “beliefs” levels the playing field. But like you said, the danger isn’t just in the wording. It’s in the unqualified permission to “manifest” beliefs without any check on their truth value or consequences. We don’t grant that kind of carte blanche to anything else in civilized life.

Now, that brings us to the ticking time bomb in the room: freedom of speech. Article 19. Everyone’s sacred cow. But if there’s no such thing as free will—if thoughts and speech are outcomes of causality, not autonomous moral choices—then what, exactly, are we protecting with “freedom of speech”?

Because if our minds aren’t free, then neither is our speech. It’s all downstream from causes we didn’t choose: culture, language, trauma, propaganda. The right to “freely express” an unchosen, possibly false belief starts to look less like liberty—and more like noise protected for its own sake. And that makes Article 19 just as suspect as Article 18.

So yes, the UDHR needs a hard rethink. Not just a word swap—but a philosophical overhaul that accounts for the reality of determinism and the consequences of protecting unfiltered output from unfree minds.

Philosophy Now Forum

Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

Re: Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

Re: Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

Re: Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

Re: Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

Re: Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

Re: Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

Re: Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

Re: Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

Re: Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

Re: Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

Re: Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

Re: Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

Re: Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

Re: Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

Re: Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion