Sorry that I didn't write an essay on the many aspects of Tolkein. (That's sarcasm, I'm not sorry, the point was that there ARE morals and themes in Tolkein, something we obviously agree on).
And there ARE morals and themes in the scriptures and teachings of all the various religions. The point is that your meme test doesn't work.
Simple question, do you believe in supernatural entities? You say "dictation of some deity". I don't believe in gods, so I would have said, "words written by men attributed to gods". By putting it that way, your explanation loses all coherence since words attributed to gods are said by men, so these universal truths are originated by humans. When I say "humanism" I don't necessarily mean someone who called themselves' a humanist, I mean any wisdom that can be extracted from a named ideology and has reasons WHY it is good or bad, just like you said. So, again, how is what you are saying different?
Okay, you're just being difficult now. By your grossly overextended argument I must be a polytheist since I said, "In that case your 'truth' will depend on the so called 'deity' and whatever words you choose to attribute to it." LOL I cannot help but thinking you are looking for a excuse to dismiss what I say. Do you do have the typical habit of the ideologue of defining things like rationality and sanity according to whether they agree with you subjective beliefs on such things?
But ok, let's suppose I am a polytheist, or rather that I believe in faeries, but that I don't believe in doojals. I will define these in the following way.
Fairies are these nature spirits called by different names in many different cultures. The Japanese call them kami and the Native Americans call them manitou. They are not physical beings and thus their existence isn't a function of the natural mathematical laws which govern the measurable universe.
Doojals are intelligent beings of any kind which only believe things which are objectively proven.
I know there is no objective way I can prove my belief that faeries exist and that doojals do not exist. Or perhaps I should indulge in Dawkins use subjective probabilities, which cannot be calculated but which give a numerical measure of personal certainty, to say I am 95% sure faeries do exist and 95% sure doojals do not exist. I admit I have these convictions for reasons which are quite subjective like personal experiences. But I am quite sure the objective evidence neither supports nor contradicts either of these two beliefs. I do observe there there are various numbers of people who think they are faeries or that they are doojals, but I think they are quite mistaken and are no such thing and so this proves nothing.
Why do I take this approach. As I said in my introduction I hold to only these three criterion for the judgement of belief and apart from that I will defend a great diversity of beliefs which meet those criterion. This diversity includes the two beliefs above. I defend both fairy-ism and a-doojal-ism as rational beliefs. Though to tell the truth I would also be inclined to defend a-fairy-ism as rational also, but when it comes to the belief in doojals, I cannot see much rationality in that belief -- it is just too incredible for me.
Fairies, Doojals, Gods, Angels, Demons, Jinns? Obviously, one who believes that one or more of such beings actually exist also believes that there is a supernatural aspect to existence that interacts with reality and humanity in many ways. The motivations for these interactions seem to be very human in emotion and behavior. Sex, power, eternal life, wealth, and being the object of worship are recurrent themes. The fact that human beings have believed for many thousands of years that supernatural beings actually exist does not make it so. The ability of human beings to use the intellect, language, emotions, behavior, physical capability, and imagination that not only allowed Homo sapiens to survive and change the environments and ecosystems of the planet but also allowed them to invent supernatural beings does not prove that supernatural beings exist. The concept that if a human mind can invent it, it must be so is specious, both with physical structure and supernatural beings. Of course with physical structures, inventions can become reality that can’t be rationally questioned, but supernatural beings either carefully select to whom they appear, or they exist only in the minds of those that invent or accept them.
Fairies, Doojals, Gods, Angels, Demons, Jinns? Obviously, one who believes that one or more of such beings actually exist also believes that there is a supernatural aspect to existence that interacts with reality and humanity in many ways. The motivations for these interactions seem to be very human in emotion and behavior. Sex, power, eternal life, wealth, and being the object of worship are recurrent themes. The fact that human beings have believed for many thousands of years that supernatural beings actually exist does not make it so. The ability of human beings to use the intellect, language, emotions, behavior, physical capability, and imagination that not only allowed Homo sapiens to survive and change the environments and ecosystems of the planet but also allowed them to invent supernatural beings does not prove that supernatural beings exist. The concept that if a human mind can invent it, it must be so is specious, both with physical structure and supernatural beings. Of course with physical structures, inventions can become reality that can’t be rationally questioned, but supernatural beings either carefully select to whom they appear, or they exist only in the minds of those that invent or accept them.
Just because some people only want to believe in the things they can measure, interrogate and control doesn't mean things which have the ability to avoid and defy them do not exist. Just because some people want to be the center around which all the universe and everything in it revolves doesn't mean those which have no interest in them or are unwilling catering to their self-importance do not exist. Just because some people fancy themselves to be doojals and in every way superior to others around them does not mean the reality will conform itself to their delusions. Just because homo sapiens have this ability to flatter themselves, invent rules about what can be real, and look down on other cultures which they have decided to call primitive or barbaric doesn't mean there is any truth to any of it. All it really means is that human beings often indulge in habits of pomposity, intolerance, and shrinking their awareness of reality to fit the boundaries of their own small minds.
I also wanted to say that I have friends both Native American and in the modern pagan communities and they are good rational decent people and I would consider any cultural imperialists marching in there to tell them they are stupid and ignorant or otherwise attempt to shove their own ignorant subjective prejudices on them to be a gross intolerance which we really have no room for in a free society which upholds the ideals of religious liberty and tolerance, which I will defend at the cost my life. But, of course, this is according to a standard of appropriate response. To violence I would respond with armed force to defend these people, to social and economic prejudice I would respond with legal action, and to verbal abuse I would respond with public condemnation.
“Just because some people only want to believe in the things they can
measure, interrogate and control doesn’t mean things which have the ability
to avoid and defy them do not exist."
True, sort of. Perhaps I, and others who do not see, feel, or gain vague impressions of things that do not exist in the natural world, did not get that amazing mutation of the gene that senses supernatural activity. OR, perhaps for some reason “things (supernatural things) which have the ability to avoid and defy" those that are not qualified or worthy to be privy to the supernatural just choose not to enlighten us. Well, so be it. In either case, we who eschew the existence of the varied supernatural denizens that occupy some human minds, find it absurd to even consider, much less revere or detest, that what exists only in the human mind, in cultures of coercion and magic, is worthy of contemplation and scrutiny. Now some people do find meaning, occupation, and even careers in the analysis of all that defies analysis. And that’s OK, there are many occupations that revolve around the fictions of which the human mind is capable of imagining and creating. And there is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is not demanded that everyone believe that the fiction is indeed truth, and to deny that supposed truth will result in ostracization, expulsion, and perhaps death. I suppose that belittlement is also a defense against the indefensible.
There is only one other thought in your post that could possibly be worthy of comment.
“Just because some people fancy themselves to be doojals and in every way superior to others around them does not mean the reality will conform itself to their delusions."
And it is just the “does not mean the reality will conform itself to their delusions" part that is important. This phrase cuts both ways. The sentence indicates that is your opinion that those that do not have a belief and/or understanding of supernatural incursions into human minds and cultures are deluded. There is, however, a burden of proof involved here. In a car crash, there is the reality of smashed cars and broken lives. In the case of God talking to Muhamad, Jesus talking to a preacher, or Moroni talking to Joseph Smith (and there are many, many other examples) it is only the recitation of the Word that demands acknowledgment and acceptance as reality. And really, that’s not good enough.
And it is just the “does not mean the reality will conform itself to their delusions" part that is important. This phrase cuts both ways. The sentence indicates that is your opinion that those that do not have a belief and/or understanding of supernatural incursions into human minds and cultures are deluded.
That is not the case. If you read my post more carefully, you would have seen the part where I said I was also inclined to defend the rationality of a-faery-ism and naturally that includes atheism also. I assert that both of these are quite capable of meeting my three criterion of logical coherence, consistency with the objective evidence and compatibility with the ideas of a free society. But this does not mean its more enthusiastic adherents always abide by these limitations.
There is, however, a burden of proof involved here. In a car crash, there is the reality of smashed cars and broken lives. In the case of God talking to Muhamad, Jesus talking to a preacher, or Moroni talking to Joseph Smith (and there are many, many other examples) it is only the recitation of the Word that demands acknowledgment and acceptance as reality. And really, that’s not good enough.
Yes, people always want to put the burden of proof on those who believe differently than they do. But the burden of proof can quite naturally and logically be derived from the very meaning of "proof". The very meaning and purpose of proof is to provide a reasonable expectation that others will agree with your assertions. The logical conclusion from this is that the burden of proof lies with anyone who would expect other people to agree with them. Thus a society which abides by the ideals of free society must restrict itself only to what can actually be proven either way and not to the small minded prejudices of those who mock, ridicule and attack the beliefs of others.
“That is not the case. If you read my post more carefully, you would have seen the part where I said I was also inclined to defend the rationality of a-faery-ism and naturally that includes atheism also. I assert that both of these are quite capable of meeting my three criterion of logical coherence, consistency with the objective evidence and compatibility with the ideas of a free society. But this does not mean its more enthusiastic adherents always abide by these limitations.”
I did catch that reference to “a-fairy-ism" but didn’t see that not believing in the rationality of fairies required defense. However I did stumble over the “three criterion of logical coherence". “consistency with the objective evidence" makes sense to a realist, but “compatibility with the ideas of a free society" does not. Well, it does if the point is that in a free society one is free to believe and express any and all manner of ideas that are not rational, but not that these irrational ideas should have to be acknowledged or even tolerated by those that do not accept them (emphasis on “have to be’).
“Yes, people always want to put the burden of proof on those who believe differently than they do. But the burden of proof can quite naturally and logically be derived from the very meaning of “proof”. The very meaning and purpose of proof is to provide a reasonable expectation that others will agree with your assertions. The logical conclusion from this is that the burden of proof lies with anyone who would expect other people to agree with them. Thus a society which abides by the ideals of free society must restrict itself only to what can actually be proven either way and not to the small minded prejudices of those who mock, ridicule and attack the beliefs of others.”
I also do not agree with your statement " The very meaning and purpose of proof is to provide a reasonable expectation that others will agree with your assertions.” I think the meaning and purpose of proof is to provide evidence of truth, regardless of expectation of agreement. The presented proof has to provide evidence of the truth of the matter without manipulation that utilizes irrational belief or emotion to express fact that is not supported by real evidence. I think it would be quite difficult to find a free society that could restrict itself “only to what can actually be proven”. Eventually, as with science, what is truth and what is not truth will be established, although I’m also sure that truth will always be debated in war, sport, and religion.
Actually in reference to myself, I prefer the term free thinker over atheist or agnostic. Too much baggage with those A terms.
I did catch that reference to “a-fairy-ism" but didn’t see that not believing in the rationality of fairies required defense. However I did stumble over the “three criterion of logical coherence". “consistency with the objective evidence" makes sense to a realist, but “compatibility with the ideas of a free society" does not. Well, it does if the point is that in a free society one is free to believe and express any and all manner of ideas that are not rational, but not that these irrational ideas should have to be acknowledged or even tolerated by those that do not accept them (emphasis on "have to be').
Atheism refers to the conclusion that for whatever reason a person doesn't see gods as worth believing in. A-fairy-ism would likewise refer to the conclusion that for whatever reason a person doesn't see faeries as worth believing in. Making a claim that the belief in gods or fairies isn't rational has quite a different burden of proof and I think implies a definition of "rationality" which I do not think is defensible. Such a definition of "rationality" is founded on subjective beliefs and personal ideas about how belief ought to be made. Without a shred of objective evidence to support such sentiments imposing such things on other people is not compatible with the ideas free society. Thus I prefer to stick with what is demonstrable, such as revealing the logical inconsistency, the conflict with objective evidence, or the incompatibility with the dictates of a free society where one person's rights necessarily stop where another person's begin.
Yes some people don't think that atheism should be defended against those who accuse it of being irrational and immoral, but I do. It is part of my belief that the diversity of human thought is a valuable asset to human civilization. Not everyone can see this. Some people have this myopic vision that only sees value in their own particular way of thinking. That intolerant ideologues like this see no value in religious freedom and tolerance is rather obvious, but it is quite hypocritical for people demand the freedom of their own subjective fetishes and sentiments without affording the same freedoms to other people.
I also do not agree with your statement " The very meaning and purpose of proof is to provide a reasonable expectation that others will agree with your assertions." I think the meaning and purpose of proof is to provide evidence of truth, regardless of expectation of agreement.
Yes it is typical of ideologues that they cannot see past the arguments they use to justify beliefs to themselves and make no effort to understand what would be convincing to other people.
But objective evidence like we find in science does concern itself with this. In that case it isn't just the method of rhetoric which ideologues use, but the specification of a written procedure which anyone can follow to see the same results. When you can provide such a procedure then the expectation that others accept the conclusion is quite reasonable.
I think it would be quite difficult to find a free society that could restrict itself "only to what can actually be proven".
Indeed, what can be proven is quite rare. However, it is the essence of secularism that the force of law be restricted to what objective evidence can establish to some measure of confidence.
Eventually, as with science, what is truth and what is not truth will be established, although I'm also sure that truth will always be debated in war, sport, and religion.
Actually truth as some sort of fixed thing is more the concern of ideologues, religious or philosophical. Science is more concerned with what the objective evidence shows.
Actually in reference to myself, I prefer the term free thinker over atheist or agnostic. Too much baggage with those A terms.
The problem is that this term "free thinker" is quite relative. For someone raised in a narrow minded religious family, free thinker might indeed be what they prefer to call themselves when they mean atheist or agnostic. But for someone raised in a family like mine with two psychology graduates for parents and filled with nothing but criticism for the religious establishment, free thinker would mean something quite different.
In "modern times" and what "ideology"?
Seriously? Marxist Leninism also known by the name Communism was an non-theistic ideology responsible for the deaths of millions of noncombatants. There was the pogroms of Stalin, the cultural revolution of China, the killing fields of Cambodia and the list goes on.
P.S. My father was blacklisted in the McCarthy era. So I am not towing any party line. Even my father, who really was a communist, eventually realized Marxist Leninism was a blight on the world -- not because all its ideas were wrong but because of the rigid ideological practice with no compunction about the effect on living human beings.
better read the last paragraph of that link.
here are the last two paragraphs I am seeing.
Although most Presbyterians welcomed the Restoration in 1660, the reforms of the Church of England were quickly revoked under the restored Stuart régime and Episcopacy was re-established. Under the Act of Uniformity (May 1662), all clergymen had to pass three tests or lose their livings: they had to use the revised Book of Common Prayer, to renounce the Solemn League and Covenant and be ordained by a bishop. Hundreds of Presbyterian and non-conformist clergymen were ejected from their livings on St Bartholomew's Day (24 August) 1662 for refusing to comply.
The Presbyterian form of church government and Reformed theology were formally adopted by the national Church of Scotland in 1690. In England, Presbyterians remained non-conformist.
There is no mention of a war fought between Presbyterians over the interpretation of Prebyterianism.
No, it justifies what I am saying.
Well then you need to come to terms with the difference between what justifies things in your own mind and what justifies things to other people.
Not in Science, they *may* compete, but certainly not on a battlefield.
War is not the methodology of science or the methodology of most religions either. Just because it is not the methodology of those things does not mean people don't fight wars over them. And just because people fight wars over them does not mean war is the method which science or these religions advocate for settling disputes.
Yes there are some sects of many religion which do advocate war as a means for settling differences, just as there are non-theistic ideologies which advocate war as a means of solving problems.
Anything that is *fundamentally* prejudicial is dangerous in its very nature.
There are objective means for the 3 criterion I have laid out for the judgment of belief. Let's hear your criterion for distinguishing between things wich are "*fundamentally* prejudicial" and things which are not?
The OP presupposes that religions do no longer exist. OK, that may erase some *peaceful* religions, but it also removes all religions which *comand* violence as part of their teachings, such as *apostasy*. One less reason to go to war. In my book that is always a good thing. If you want t extend this to non-theistic *motivations*, assume that the need for oil no longer exists. Would people go to war over oil?
Violence will always exist for many reasons, but if you take away some of these motivations, then the world would be a safer place, IMO.
"That is not the case. If you read my post more carefully, you would have seen the part where I said I was also inclined to defend the rationality of a-faery-ism and naturally that includes atheism also. I assert that both of these are quite capable of meeting my three criterion of logical coherence, consistency with the objective evidence and compatibility with the ideas of a free society. But this does not mean its more enthusiastic adherents always abide by these limitations."
I did catch that reference to “a-fairy-ism" but didn’t see that not believing in the rationality of fairies required defense. However I did stumble over the “three criterion of logical coherence". “consistency with the objective evidence" makes sense to a realist, but “compatibility with the ideas of a free society" does not. Well, it does if the point is that in a free society one is free to believe and express any and all manner of ideas that are not rational, but not that these irrational ideas should have to be acknowledged or even tolerated by those that do not accept them (emphasis on "have to be').
"Yes, people always want to put the burden of proof on those who believe differently than they do. But the burden of proof can quite naturally and logically be derived from the very meaning of "proof". The very meaning and purpose of proof is to provide a reasonable expectation that others will agree with your assertions. The logical conclusion from this is that the burden of proof lies with anyone who would expect other people to agree with them. Thus a society which abides by the ideals of free society must restrict itself only to what can actually be proven either way and not to the small minded prejudices of those who mock, ridicule and attack the beliefs of others.
" Such as *exclusive* religions and their adherents who believe which demand *enforcement* of their tenets.
Take that away and religion will no longer be an imperative to wage religious wars.
...
Just because some people only want to believe in the things they can measure, interrogate and control doesn't mean things which have the ability to avoid and defy them do not exist...
Sure things may exist that we cannot yet perceive. And it can be fun to think about them. But to actually decide that certain "supernatural" things actually do exist, just because one wants to believe, or has been indoctrinated to do so, seems dysfunctional to me. If anything can be considered to be "real", then behavior no longer needs to be guided by what we can actually perceive.
Just curious Mitch, since I see you are a physics teacher, and that was my favorite class in high school, how do you square the Big Bang theory with belief in fairies?
The OP presupposes that religions do no longer exist. OK, that may erase some *peaceful* religions, but it also removes all religions which *comand* violence as part of their teachings, such as *apostasy*. One less reason to go to war. In my book that is always a good thing. If you want t extend this to non-theistic *motivations*, assume that the need for oil no longer exists. Would people go to war over oil?
Violence will always exist for many reasons, but if you take away some of these motivations, then the world would be a safer place, IMO.
In my book it is the misguided attempts to control the motivations of other people which is the biggest cause for violence and war. Now it true that any society must make some imposition upon its citizens. I believe in the minimal impositions of free society which require them to recognize that their freedoms are limited by the same freedoms of other people.
...
Just because some people only want to believe in the things they can measure, interrogate and control doesn't mean things which have the ability to avoid and defy them do not exist...
Sure things may exist that we cannot yet perceive. And it can be fun to think about them. But to actually decide that certain "supernatural" things actually do exist, just because one wants to believe, or has been indoctrinated to do so, seems dysfunctional to me. If anything can be considered to be "real", then behavior no longer needs to be guided by what we can actually perceive.
Psychology has discovered that perception is not independent from belief. It may be fun for ideologues to imagine they know and understand why other people believe the things they do, but to actually insist their imagination of such things dictates reality seems dysfunctional to me. If you replace other people with these movie prop substitutes concocted to serve your own ideology, then your behavior towards people is no longer guided by what can be considered rational.
Just curious Mitch, since I see you are a physics teacher, and that was my favorite class in high school, how do you square the Big Bang theory with belief in fairies?
It is not the business of physics to square any such thing. Physics is about looking at the world around us through the filter of mathematics and thus see how mathematics can help us to understand a lot of what we see in the world around us. The Big-bang theory with many connections to particle physics has become nearly (but not quite) as routine a tool in scientific inquiry as the theories of evolution and relativity. Particularly telling is the way we have increasingly narrowed down the exact age of the universe. I consider this to be good evidence that this theory is quickly approaching the status of scientific knowledge and fact.
However, since I have promised to take up the defense of this belief in faeries, I shall now remove the hat of physics teacher and don the hat of a faithful believer in faery-ism.
Fairies are spirits, which means they are from a different plane of existence where entities are not governed by the mathematical laws of the physical universe. Mathematical law which govern the things of the physical universe as discovered by quantum mechanics is not a causally closed system -- i.e. not deterministic. But that lack of closure is very small and thus can only be imagined to allow influences from outside these laws in a very limited way.
However, spirits like the faeries are not limited in how much they may take their own form, meaning and enjoyment from the things of the physical world. And so these nature spirits attach their attention and existence to whatever there is of this world which strikes their fancy such as the trees, flowers, animals, rocks, streams and perhaps even some man-made things like statues. They may not have much influence over events, but this doesn't mean they do not care when humans wreak havoc upon the things they care about. And then as limited in their influence as they may be, coincidence, luck, and happenstance may well turn against us in response to their outrage.
The OP presupposes that religions do no longer exist. OK, that may erase some *peaceful* religions, but it also removes all religions which *comand* violence as part of their teachings, such as *apostasy*. One less reason to go to war. In my book that is always a good thing. If you want t extend this to non-theistic *motivations*, assume that the need for oil no longer exists. Would people go to war over oil?
Violence will always exist for many reasons, but if you take away some of these motivations, then the world would be a safer place, IMO.
In my book it is the misguided attempts to control the motivations of other people which is the biggest cause for violence and war. Now it true that any society must make some imposition upon its citizens. I believe in the minimal impositions of free society which require them to recognize that their freedoms are limited by the same freedoms of other people.
And the only way to achieve this is in secular society where everyone respects the rights of others and not *impose* sharia law, just to name one instance, i.e. Theocracy. History is filled with religious atrocities, in the name of God or a Bible.
It doesn't really matter if the government is a dictatorship or a theocracy, which dictates the way people should live and behave.
And the only way to achieve this is in secular society where everyone respects the rights of others and not *impose* sharia law, just to name one instance, i.e. Theocracy. History is filled with religious atrocities, in the name of God or a Bible.
It doesn't really matter if the government is a dictatorship or a theocracy, which dictates the way people should live and behave.
That is correct. The dictates of religion as well as the opinions of any group on many religious issues cannot be established by objective evidence and therefore must have no support from the essentially militant force of the law.
I defend both theism and atheism as quite capable of satisfying the dictates of the three criterion I have given for rational belief. BUT this is NOT the same as what is objectively demonstrable. Rational belief should allowed but certainly not enforced or supported by the law of a free society. That would not be consistent. Pushing the opinion of one group would violate the same freedoms of others to their own opinions on these issues where there is no objective evidence.
If something can established by objective evidence then that would not be religion but rather science. With the objective evidence of harm to others there is a reason for expectation of the agreement of others and thus good reason to employ the enforcement of the law.
I may have very good reasons to believe in faeries but since I cannot prove anything about them it would be entirely inappropriate to enforce on other people anything which such beliefs might dictate. If I believe faeries are going to be angry about the destruction of trees and flowers then that only justifies my own decisions about my own actions and I cannot reasonably expect anyone else to take such claims seriously. The burden of proof would indeed be on me if I expected any such thing.
I’m not clear, Mitch, on where you are going with your arguments. But this is what I think you are saying.
Every individual has a right to their own opinions, beliefs, and convictions whether or not they meet any or all canons of any human culture, so long as the individual, and the culture, understands that their right to hold their beliefs is intrinsic with the right of every other individual, and their culture, to also hold and espouse their beliefs, whether conflicting or not. Inherent in this basic tenet of a free society is the granting of respect to all people regardless of their beliefs.
True, it is idealistic and not likely to be the case very often, but it is still fundamental to human freedom from religious and secular tyranny. And that works for me as long as long as it also includes the freedom to consider and argue that the beliefs of that individual, and/or culture are not correct and meaningful and that those beliefs, but not the believer, need not be respected or held in esteem. In other words I respect your right to believe in faeries (if that is an actual belief and not just a metaphor), but I also have the right to believe that supernatural faeries (“in ancient folklore faeries were often portrayed as powerful beings who could wreak havoc on the lives of humans") just do not exist, and that such a belief is ridiculous. (You obviously think otherwise.) I do acknowledge that there may well be something before, and after, the Big Bang that we do not and may never understand, but I see no evidence that the supernatural beliefs manufactured by human imagination are in any way evidence of the actual existence of such beings.
In other words I respect your right to believe in faeries (if that is an actual belief and not just a metaphor), but I also have the right to believe that supernatural faeries (“in ancient folklore faeries were often portrayed as powerful beings who could wreak havoc on the lives of humans") just do not exist, and that such a belief is ridiculous.
Without the ridiculous comment I would defend your expressions of disbelief to any who might object. If you keep that final descriptor to yourself, then I would have nothing to say about it and no problem with your company. Otherwise, I hope you understand I will feel free to politely express my opinion your behavior is rather gauche and it would better for everyone for you to stay at home away from decent people. I am certainly not going to withhold my judgement that those who are not prepared to behave with good manners to people with different cultures and beliefs should confine themselves to people of their own culture and beliefs.
Or.. put it this way. I would be prepared to defend the rationality of your disbelief but I would argue against your claim that this belief is ridiculous in any objective way. As a subjective judgment like my own distaste for reality tv shows, I would have no problem with it. I would also tend to agree that many expressions of a belief in faeries could be considered ridiculous or even evidence of mental illness if it dominates their life in an unproductive way.