Revere makes a bunch of good points in his Sunday Sermonette. One is the sheer insanity of current American politics:
Enlightenment thinking is taken for granted by modern Europeans, so it's no surprise they are aghast when the leaders of a 21st century power think Divine Guidance is a good reason for exercising overwhelming power over its own and other peoples.
And another is the importance of secularism and reason in any Democratic nation.
Democracy without rationality -- or in my terms, Enlightenment values -- is a hollow promise, or worse, mob rule.
Religious values are intrinsically autocratic and irrational, relying on ignorance for their propagation, and are therefore anti-democratic.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I'll give the clergy one thing: sermonizing can be hard work. Not always, of course. Some politicians and religious figures do it effortlessly, without thought, so to speak. Maybe I should leave off "so to speak." Without thought. Sometimes, though, it's hard to think of what to say on Sunday. But…
In response to wonderful fisking by Ed of a really silly Creationist screed, Archy comments on the use of the terms "Darwinist" by Creationists, as a marketing tool to paint biologists as dogmatic, while at the same time avoding the term "creationist" in order to paint themselves as scientific:…
Over at the Sepia Mutiny blog there has been seem dispute over whether Pervez Musharraf's declaration of a state of emergency in Pakistan. Some contributors are appalled, while others are urging caution. One of the posts was titled In defense of a dictator, and it understandably drew a lot of…
Update: OK, a pro is in the house. Chris of Mixing Memory starts:
I don't really know where to start on this. Lakoff's reply is one of the most intellectually dishonest pieces of writing I've seen from a cognitive scientist, and if anyone other than Lakoff had written it, I'd probably just ignore…
The 1st Amendment makes the U.S. an officially empty of religion government by law. Historically did not Stalin believe he was a god? To be worshipped like one, especially the leader(s) of North Korea? Hitler's beliefs were mystical and he thought himself to act like god and gave Christian excuses to kill all the Christ Killers - he used that as an excuse, and it swayed many, right? ...
I can only hope that there is a healthy dose of sarcasm in posts 1 & 2, and it's just too early in the morning for me to see it.
In regards to post #1... Please give an example of an atheistic government in history which held a bloody dictatorship.
And post #2... None of those governments were (are) acting from atheistic positions. We atheists do not see ourselves as gods. Hitler was Catholic, Stalin used religion to manipulate the masses, as do the Korean governments. They simply use whatever tools they can to keep control. Religion happens to be an excellent tool.
"After all, if God is eliminated, what remains is the state...the most powerful group will end up making the rules; the mob can easily be bought off."
God doesn't exist, he doesn't have to be eliminated. So looks like you're pretty much fucked anyway, Goldstein.
Oddly enough, this leaves us Europeans open to a risk as well: because religion is largely absent from politics and debate here, and most of us take enlightenment values for granted, we may not realize that those values need active support to remain vital.
Whatever our political viewpoints, if we don't continuously stand up for rationality as the cornerstone of public decision-making, we shouldn't be surprised if other forces fill the gap: a resurgence of relying on religion is one alternative, post-modernist mumbo-jumbo another.
More than any actual policy issue, this difference between the US and Europe risks creating a deep trans-atlantic divide, but we in Europe should be careful not to get on any high horses unless we make sure our own enlightenment is secured.
While I'd admit that the reasoning that brings one person to disbelieve god could also arguably inform their political stance, atheism is not a political doctrine, Mr Goldstein.
The closest you can have of a atheistic state would in my opinion be the French republic, which would be more properly described as "militantly secular" especially in the first decades of the XXe century. And, while there is much to be criticized in France, I don't think somehow that the phrase "bloody dictatorship" is the right one there.
(Interestingly, it would be much more fittingly applied to the Vichy regime of 1940-1944, which was decidedly christian in his inspiration with its emphasis on "Travail, Famille, Patrie".)
Sorry for off-topic rant,
@PZ :
Man ! Don't you ever sleep ?
Tell me your secret plz !
#3: The usual examples of communist dictatorships were atheistic regimes. They were dogmatic in the insistence on lack of religion.
The fact that fundy kooks don't understand the reasons why this does not support their contention that once god is out all hell breaks loose (you can't expect those guys to actually know things) does not mean it is not technically correct.
Speaking of witch-doctors, has anyone here seen CNN's piece on "Christian Soldiers" subtitled something like Culture Warriors in America ? Among other things it highlighted a group calling itself "Battle Cry", an organization which holds Jesus-Rallies in cities they pick for the purpose of creating controversy. The CNN show included a view of one of these gatherings. Watching, I could only think of the nazi rallies in the 20s and 30s. Music, red flags, people standing with their hands in the air -- the image of the Nuremberg rally just jumped out at me. I'm not (necessarily) accusing these people of being nazis, but I do see some of the same methods being used, and that bothers me.
umm, isn't emanuel goldstein the "Kansas Troll" who was supposedly thrown into the dungeon?
check the dungeon link.
goldstein should be disemvoweled immediately.
Also there was Hoxha from Albania: "In 1967, the authorities conducted a violent campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania, claiming that religion had divided the Albanian nation and kept it mired in backwardness. Student agitators combed the countryside, forcing Albanians to quit practicing their faith. Despite complaints, even by APL members, all churches, mosques, monasteries, and other religious institutions had been closed or converted into warehouses, gymnasiums, and workshops by year's end. A special decree abrogated the charters by which the country's main religious communities had operated. The campaign culminated in an announcement that Albania had become the world's first atheistic state, a feat touted as one of Enver Hoxha's greatest achievements." from Wikipedia and elsewhere. However, Hoxha's dogma is just as bad as the religious dogmas. It has nothing to do with today's european atheism/secularism.
Valhar2000- it is NOT technically correct, since the "usual examples" (also including National Socialism) were in fact substitute religions with all the trimmings. They each had an eschaton (which happened- a trivial difference from "real" religions- to be on earth rather than upstairs: the communist society of "to each according to need, from each according to ability"; the triumph of the "superior" "race" leading to everlasting peace and prosperity). Each demanded assent, on pain of punishment, to an ideology built upon a farrago of unprovable metaphysical doctrines. Each had an army of functionaries equivalent to priests and bishops, who had the duty of propagating and enforcing the ruling ideology. As DLC notes in #9, the close family resemblance to mass religious movements is in fact painfully apparent to any rational observer.
Additional note on revolutionary France: during the Terror atheists were vigorously persecuted, and guillotined if they came to the attention of the authorities; Robespierre attempted to start a new state cult of the Supreme Being with himself as its pontifex maximus.
Emanuel Goldstein writes:
The assumption behind this oversimplistic dichotomy is that morality does not exist without the existence of a sky fairy. Wrong. The situation Goldstein is really trying to assess is whether morality should be imposed by a religious hierarchy through ancient dogma or considered by reasonable people within social contexts. This makes the commenter's choice of on-line identity ironic. In 1984, the character named Emanuel Goldstein led a movement against mindless subservience to autocratic rule, while here, the commenter is advocating for blind adherence to religious authority. After all, who better fits the role of Big Brother than a jealous, wrathful god?
A great many of The Old Testament's stories come from earlier tales (e.g., Gilgamesh, etc) and the style is, mostly, a direct rip-off of The Egyptian Book Of The Dead.
To learn more of TOT times, view this YouTube film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7iQRFP_e90
The New Testament, well . . . . . to learn more than enough of TNT's creation, view this two part YouTube film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzY2bVsZK5s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sckuqPulRGk
And, as a special Humbug surprise, the hit parody song
"The Little Bummer Boy"
http://www.soundlift.com/band/music.php?song_id=82930
AND, if that ain't enough, you may join moi's YGroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tor_Hershman/
May you all have a delightful 'Someone's Been Embezzling Oil And Selling It On The Side' Eightdays, a wonderful Solstice, the happiest possible Humbug and may your Hollowdays be filled with the most joyous of pleasures.
Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor
That's not quite the reason I see the mix of religion and politics as anti-democratic. The reason is this:
It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion about anything if the term of debate are grounded in things that only you can see.
I'm atheist and a keen supporter of Enlightenment values, but I have some sympathy with the argument that the avowedly atheist communist regimes have not historically been Good Things. But that's a complaint about regimes that are anti-religious (in attempting to suppress religious organisations as competitors for the power they crave) rather than regimes which are simply secular (keeping religion separate from the state).
Interestingly, I had a friend who was an ardent Trotskyite and I was amused at how his group had the same whiff about them as the local Jehovah's Witnesses in that they were both keen to construct a detailed ideology that accorded literally with the inerrant writings of their revered authors. And they were equally enthusiastic about forecasting inevitable and imminent collapse of society, never deterred by this repeatedly failing to occur!
I'm probably grasping at straws, but reading this story has me feeling just a tiny bit better about "Enlightenment thinking."
It always amuses me when theists decry attempts to banish god, as if we puny humans could banish something they consider to be omnipotent and omniscient. I'll grant that Stalin was evil and perpetrated many despicable acts. Why did their god not prevent it? How could a mere human such as Hitler defy god and kill millions of Jews, the chosen people?
From my view, most dictators will either destroy religion to eliminate a possible alternate power structure, or absorb it into their own ideology with them as the titular head of the religion. The power to do great evil exists either way.
Like the USA you mean? Separation of church and state is written into the constitution (the no religious test) and in the 1st amendment as well. By products of the enlightment who saw first hand the blood spilled by Xianity.
Theocracies earned their bad rep long ago. They always fail eventually and frequently with a lot of blood spilled. The one notable attempt in America was the Puritans. After killing 26 alleged witches, they also killed some Quakers and Unitarians. Sectarian violence, it is not just for breakfast anymore.
Goldstein's dichotomy boils down to dictatorship by a (hopefully) beneficent God vs. dictotorship by the State. Democracy per se is neither, but can proceed to dictatorship by the mob in the absence of rationalism.
Now, the question becomes which of the various possible cultural milieu either contribute to or detract from a rationalist culture? It becomes clear that the only hope for functional democracy is in a secular society, since a religious (authoritarian, 'supernaturalist', mystical, and irrationalist) culture will tend to impress upon the polity those tendencies towards absolutism which themselves devolve into dictatorship. A religious culture (feudal, czarist Russia, for example) would devolve into the kind of oppressive dictatorship witnessed under Stalin in anycase; and it does not help in that example's instance that an oppressive dictatorship is what the Old Butcher was going for -- and God was not Stalin's enemy, after all; God was his rival....
I've always been leery of the idea of the Philosopher King. How moreso we should fear the idela of a 'Philosopher Priest" -- dictatorship by a God of Love (so-called). It's still dictatorship; and if I read the Bible right there's some question about that 'Love' part. But the bottom line is that Democracy is not viable unless with atheism/rationalism as a component of the culture (if not the foundation). An in America now we are seeing the effects of Democracy without it, and it isn't pretty.
Was this intended to be a definition or an empirical observation? Both Unitarian Universalist and Reform Judaism provide counter examples. There are also counter examples within some of the larger Christian sects. Adding "many" or "most" as a qualifier, however, wouldn't carry the same rhetorical force.
Humans historically haven't done very good jobs with either religion or statecraft, together or seperately. A good society is like a well-tended public garden: it needs lots of good preparation and investment, followed by lots of careful monitoring for problems, with pest control, tweaking, weeding, and adjustment as appropriate, plus generally good behavior on the part of the public.
American fundamentalism and right-wing denial of reality, particularly when mixed with either science or government, are forces that end up replacing the Enlightenment with a new Endarkenment.
quote: Democracy without rationality -- or in my terms, Enlightenment values -- is a hollow promise, or worse, mob rule.
That reminds me of the american ambassador to italy arguing (at the time) that fascism was the best form of democracy, and mussolini a great man, because it entirely catered to the will of the majority of people. here is the abstract of the nyt article.
"Religious values are intrinsically autocratic and irrational, relying on ignorance for their propagation, and are therefore anti-democratic."
So you didn't read about the Reformation while in school? Pity that (and the other counter-examples your dogma forces you to ignore).
So you didn't read about Calvin's theocratic dictatorship in Geneva while in school? Pity that (and the other counter-examples your dogma forces you to ignore).
No, they don't. Both of them are based upon acceptance of the existence of a supernatural deity. Irrationality at the very core.
Borges had a wonderful line about Luther hating the papacy in Rome and building a new one in Germany. . . .
Incidentally, I think it's time to visit the Doonesbury weekly poll and make their wheels spin.
"So you didn't read about Calvin's theocratic dictatorship in Geneva while in school?"
In case you missed class that day, the key innovation of the Reformation was the idea that the Church doesn't speak monolithicly -- people can figure things out for themselves. That individuals may make poor choices in exercising that freedom is entirely and precisely irrelevant to that point.
"Pity that (and the other counter-examples your dogma forces you to ignore)."
Bzzzzzt. Counterexamples (examples of lousy choices) prove the point rather than contradict it. Thanks for playing though.
In what way was the Reformation of all things "democratic"? A bunch of autocrats swapping one form of autocracy for another that puts them in positions of power hardly qualifies as "democracy," although you could say the same thing about the governments of most of the G-8 countries these days.
Did Calvin allow people in Geneva to figure things out for themselves? Not hardly. But go ahead, keep digging.
Theocracies always end up as hells on earth. There are a few today. Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia. Mostly third world dumps with high levels of lethal violence and short life spans. The life span is Afghanistan is 47 years.
This is the tried and true model that the fundies want to force on the USA. They've made a lot of progress.
BTW, what does the Reformation have to do with democracy? Nothing. The autocratic regimes in Europe were still autocratic regimes afterwards. In the UK, Henry VIII just exchanged one church for another one more easily controllable.
When the common people naively thought Luther actually meant to empower them, here is the "encouragement" he offered for their democratic ideas: http://tinyurl.com/3ao68q
"Theocracies always end up as hells on earth."
Indeed. The only records to rival them belong to the officially atheist regimes. In each case the key problem is certainty -- the idea that "we" are right and "they" are wrong and so obviously so that people who think otherwise are inferior (evil or irrational or delusional or or or). Freedom to think and believe otherwise allows democracy (and capitalism and science and and and) to exist and to flourish.
Oh jolly, here we go again. You mean the "offically atheist" regimes that have enforced the acceptance of irrational, not-to-be-questioned ideologies which closely resemble religions?
Amazing how these idiots can do nothing but parrot the same tired canards.
"You mean the "offically atheist" regimes that have enforced the acceptance of irrational, not-to-be-questioned ideologies which closely resemble religions?"
So the League of the Militant Godless is now seen as actually having been religious in nature, freedom is slavery, yours don't stink and Boxer keeps on working away. Well done.
@Jeff Alexander (...funny, that's actually my name too, although you aren't me, I take it.... :) -- there's a case to be made that the exceptionalism you note of UU and Reform Judaism stems from the infusion/adoption of Enlightenment rationalism rather than any implicit theological programme within their respective sects.
Under the heading of "with friends like these...," check out this story. Even if we can convince people that atheists aren't ruthless dictators by nature, how will we get past the Satanist thing? [sigh]
Is, say, secular humanism religious in nature? How about non-theistic forms of Buddhism?
Substituting an earth-centered mythology for a sky-centered one has nothing to do with secularism and rationalism. (But your inability to understand this surprises no one.) The problem lies with ALL mythologies which are conceived of as being unquestionable and which seek political power, regardless of whether they worship "God" or "History". I care not which one of is oppressing people in a particular country, since the only significant reality of the situation is that people are being oppressed.
"Your" in #39 refers to the Sinbad troll.
"The problem lies with ALL mythologies [ideologies/viewpoints] which are conceived of as being unquestionable and which seek political power...."
So you've conceded the point. Thanks.
What point was that, exactly? You haven't even managed to make one yet.
As I said, it surprises no one that a dogma-crippled mind like yours is able to conceive only of the conflict of alternative dogmas, but boggles at the concept of freedom from dogma. We don't expect you to get it. We're just laughing at you.
So would you assert that a political ideology combined with a personality cult is not a religion?
Even if this were true, it wouldn't mean that the "values" are intrinsically autocratic and irrational. Some examples from various religions:1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Christianity)2. What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. (Judaism)3. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill. (Buddhism)The "values" espoused by many religions are not intrinsically autocratic or irrational. The religious institutions may be, and the theology frequently is, but the values frequently aren't. This is why I asked about definitions. If it is argued that the three examples aren't religious values, that seems to be falling into a fallacy that just redefines religious values to be those that are "intrinsically autocratic and irrational". That being said, I would hate to live in any theocracy, Democratic or otherwise.
Don't forget that until Pope Paul VI, the Roman Catholic Church was against democracy. They wanted a ruler they could crown.
The concept that regimes can be secular but have much on common with traditional authoritarian religions is not a new one. There is even a term used to describe such regimes, and that is Political Religion. It is a term that has been in use for many years.
Agreed. I don't think either of these sects would exist were it not for the Enlightenment. Certainly early Reform Judaism took this approach with its emphasis on personal autonomy and ethics and its rejection of much (all?) of the ceremonial law.
There was nothing religious anout those values... those are common human values that are not special to the religious.
There's nothing about specifically that makes those values that can be attributed to being oriiginating from religion.
I'm struggling to understand what a "democratic theocracy" might be, since democracy means "people rule" and theocracy means "God rules." Absent some sort of Heinleinian pantheism ("Thou art God, water brother!"), it would seem these two notions are in direct contradiction.
Of course, in practice most modern democracies still harbor some theocratic vestiges in their nooks and crannies. I guess you could imagine a government in which theocratic and democratic impulses were more or less equally in evidence... but I wouldn't call such a government a "democratic theocracy"; I'd call it dangerously schizophrenic. YMMV.
Thanks! I like the description. For a "democratic theocracy" I was thinking about a few states that are struggling with these issues:Iraq - what role will Islam have in its government?Israel - Currently doesn't have a constitution because a "Jewish state has the Torah/Talmud".Pakistan - Not a democracy nor a theocracy but has leanings towards both.etc.Yes they are dangerously schizophrenic.
I'd put Iran as close to a religious theocracy as you could get. They trend one way or the other depending on the situation.(normally toward democracy when they aren't being constantly threatened with invasion.) And, while I certainly wouldn't classify them as a free country, and would classify them as quite brutal in some respects, they are certainly years and years ahead of some non-theocracy democracies in certain respects. Compare them to say, some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.
I assume that what you really mean is theocratic Liberal democracies. Which are in fact dangerously schizophrenic.
I'm probably too ignorant about chemistry to get this metaphor right, but "fools rush in...," eh"
I'd say states such as you describe consist of democracy and theocracy in an unstable solution; my expectation is that in each and every case, the instability will resolve itself in the form of an exothermic reaction.
I had a freaky racist in a chat room (not a racist chat room) tell me that there were no "fags" in Iran and he thought that Iran was better than the U.S. because of it.
Here's a twist, he was an "agnostic" and he believed in evolution, I think that's because he felt evolution gives him a leg up on people of african descent. He was nuts.
"So would you assert that a political ideology combined with a personality cult is not a religion?"
Unless you re-define religion to mean simply an autocratic system, then it is not a religion. The problem isn't religion per se, even though many religions and religious people are major problems and other ideologies often share those problems. The problem is certainty. The right virtue to improve the situation and act as an antidote is reverence, which needn't be religious and which has Aristotelian and Confucian roots (for those of you pathologically afraid of something with religious overtones). It's the idea that human beings shouldn't try to act like gods.
"I'd call it dangerously schizophrenic."
I hate to be the pedant here, especially since your meaning was plain, but schizophrenia is not characterized by multiple personality disorder, which is a distinct mental illness. Schizophrenics suffer from a range of symptoms including irrational detachments, disorganized thoughts, impaired perceptions (often hallucinatory) and in some cases an irrational belief that they are being persecuted (paranoid schizophrenia). Multiple personalities is not among them.
A close friend has schizophrenia, so maybe I am overly sensitive to a rhetorical mischaracterization of his illness. Common (mis)usage of the term, though, is so frequent that I know my point will seem stupid and I fully expect a barrage of insults for having the temerity to point it out.
No, NOT simply an autocratic system. An autocratic system which demands adherence to a particular set of unsupported metaphysical beliefs. As I said, it makes little difference whether the "deity" being worshiped is Sky daddy or a reification of "History"- these are very similar phenomena appealing to very similar mentalities.
"Unless you re-define religion to mean simply an autocratic system, then it is not a religion."
You have an astounding ability to erect one strawman after another. No one is claiming that autocratic systems are also religions, they are claiming that metaphysical belief systems which resemble religion in every respect except, perhaps, lacking explicitly supernatural elements are functionally equivalent to religions.
You know, I came that close to adding a note to my original post explaining that I meant the term in its colloquial, rather than strictly clinical, sense. In any case, I didn't have multiple personality disorder in mind... at least not in the classic popular Sybil/Three Faces of Eve sense: I was thinking more about the etymology of the word (split mind), the core metaphor being that a government split between theocracy and democracy is a societal "head" split against itself. As it turns out, the top-level definition of schizophrenia I found at its wikipedia entry...
"a mental illness characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of reality"
...strikes me as a not-inapt description of a government trying to be both democratic and theocratic at once.
Reverence? How the fuck does reverence act as an antidote to certainty? I can imagine it now:
A)That is why I am certain that we must destroy them all!
B)Well, I honour and respect your certainty. How do you like that, eh? Not so certain now, are you? What's that? Thank you for your support? No, that's not what I meant!
I should have added (@58) that of course I did not intend any disrespect toward actual (rather than metaphorical) sufferers of schizophrenia, nor did I mean to diminish the seriousness of their diagnosis in any way.
PZ Myers: "Religious values are intrinsically autocratic and irrational, relying on ignorance for their propagation, and are therefore anti-democratic."
A given value can have a variety of rationales: (purportedly) scientific , religious, intuitive, consensus and so on. The religiousness of a value says nothing about the programmatic aspect of the value, only its rationale. Hence, the multitude of sometimes mutually exclusive religious programs - Social Gospel, reconstructionism, liberation theology etc. A given religious value or set of associated values can be identical to a secular value or set of them.
It sounds paradoxical, but it is not: secularism itself can be rationalized on religious grounds, and hence in that case be a religious value. By the same token, theocracy can be rationalized on secular grounds - say, a social scientific theory that the masses need strict religious guidance - and hence be a secular value.
In addition, autocratic and irrational tendencies are not unique to religiously rationalized values; they are not unusual in secularly rationalized values. Irrationalism and autocracy are overlapping set that includes both religious and secular rationales.
Hm. I think PZ has said that his problem with fuzzy liberal religion is not the religion itself, but that its fuzzy-mindedness can give support to the autocratic systems; to totalitarian theology.
You seem very certain of that...
While I am being a bit facetious there, I think there are things we do have some certainty for; that is, rationality and skeptical analysis. It is precisely those virtues that PZ and other rationalist atheists try to promote.
I am not sure that it makes sense to promote reverence as a virtue unless you state clearly what is being revered.
Hm. Although, speaking of reverence, is it not the case that PZ's "The proper reverence due those who have gone before" is an essay that promotes the virtue of reverence (in this case for the struggles of humanity's ancestors)?
I'm not sure that that is quite what reverence means, though. You seem to be confusing the concept with humility, which since it is directed inward needs no stated object. Since reverence can be directed anywhere, you need to specify what is to be revered (everyone? everything?).
"No one is claiming that autocratic systems are also religions, they are claiming that metaphysical belief systems which resemble religion in every respect except, perhaps, lacking explicitly supernatural elements are functionally equivalent to religions."
Virtually every really important matter in life -- if/who to marry, what political approach to take, what economic system is best, what moral and ethical values to hold -- rests upon unclear matters in dispute and unevidenced assumptions. I believe wholeheartedly that all persons are indeed created equal, but I can't prove it.
"Reverence? How the fuck does reverence act as an antidote to certainty? I can imagine...."
Obviously you need to brush up on your Aristotle.
"Irrationalism and autocracy are overlapping set that includes both religious and secular rationales."
Exactly so.
"While I am being a bit facetious there, I think there are things we do have some certainty for; that is, rationality and skeptical analysis. It is precisely those virtues that PZ and other rationalist atheists try to promote."
But they are certain of far more than just the process. They're certain of a whole set of conclusions they claim spring from their analysis. Middle age has taught me that people of goodwill as well as thoughtful, intelligent and reasonable people can and will disagree on a whole host of important subjects. That some people think otherwise may make them wrong, but it doesn't make them inferior (or irrational or delusional or evil or or or).
"I'm not sure that that is quite what reverence means, though."
Here is a great book on the subject:
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/EthicsMoralPhi…
The right virtue to improve the situation and act as an antidote is reverence, which needn't be religious and which has Aristotelian and Confucian roots (for those of you pathologically afraid of something with religious overtones). It's the idea that human beings shouldn't try to act like gods.
Aristotle was a relativist and put no stock in a fixed truth, meaning the 'right virtue to improve the situation' depends and differs from one person to the next, from one culture to the next. And I don't know if Westerners can fully understnad Eastern philosophy, but since you brought up Confucious anyway, his teachings are very interpretive since they are told in story form. Aristotle would say that people would find different virtues being reflected in Confucious's teachings, especially if from different cultures.
So the idea of reverence is really your own solution then, if you drag these philosophies into the mix, and not neccisarily the same for everyone.
I also agree with Owlmirror on reverence being outward and needing specification. Which would, once again, be relative in your argument.
That some people think otherwise may make them wrong, but it doesn't make them inferior (or irrational or delusional or evil or or or).
hmm, so if I insist that the sky is actually chartreuse green, because a sky fairy told me so, that wouldn't make me delusional, eh?
what about if I'm so sure that if you don't believe that the sky is chartreuse that the world will disintegrate, and thus I must implore you through all channels to believe?
what if I decide that it's so important, we must not teach that "sky is blue" THEORY anymore; in deference to what my sky fairy told me is the absolute truth: that the sky is chartreuse?
no, there IS a place to draw the line, sinny, and those that believe an invisible sky daddy modifies reality ARE deluded. ...and delusions, ask you can ask of any psychologist, can be dangerous.
so yes, you're both delusional and irrational.
if you take those as insults personally, you can always do something about it to fix it.
If someone is an alcoholic, they can do something about that, too, but that doesn't stop us from calling them drunks, and pointing out the irrational defense mechanisms they utilize to maintain their addictive behaviors.
I believe wholeheartedly that all persons are indeed created equal, but I can't prove it.
and yet we can easily prove that not all IDEAS are equal.
so stop trying to equate the two, moron.
Confucian reverence is not very non-religious. It is based around ancestor worship. Of course Westerners love to read all their beliefs into eastern philosophy. Maybe the practices of some of the Neo-Confucians, perhaps the Lu-Wang school, are closer to the reverence that you are talking about. But the metaphysics which undergird those practices are explicitly religious.
"so yes, you're both delusional and irrational."
That's a lot of fallacies for one post, Icky, but I don't need to go beyond one: your claim here is unsupported and unevidenced. Actually, I should improve my response a touch: your claim here is unsupported and unevidenced, moron. If you want to go beyond your hand-waving screed above and actually make an argument we can talk. Otherwise, you can continue your masturbatory efforts unimpeded.
Sinbad.
Quit projecting.
"Quit projecting.
You might want to quit the dime store psychology and actually produce a bit of evidence (or prod Icky to produce some) in support of his claim.
Just a suggestion.
Hm. Without a more explicit example, I don't see what's wrong with that. The principle of induction is very strong, and if the premises and reasoning are correct, then the conclusions are almost certainly correct — unless you have some way of explicitly showing the falsity of the premises or reasoning?
This is what happens when induction is rejected:
http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html
While Ichthyic's tone is rather rude, I think the point made is correct: While some things can be reasonably disagreed on because their truth value is complex or undecidable, in other cases the truth value is so clearly wrong that to hold it is indeed at the very least delusional.
To bring the discussion around to Stalin again, biographical reports agree that he did believe that Bolshevism was correct and ought to be promoted. He ordered people to be tortured and/or exiled and/or killed because he thought they were the enemies of Bolshevism, or of himself (and since he was the foremost proponent of Bolshevism, these were essentially equivalent in his mind).
So. Do you not disagree with him? And would you not call him insane, and evil, for his beliefs?
"Virtually every really important matter in life -- if/who to marry, what political approach to take, what economic system is best, what moral and ethical values to hold -- rests upon unclear matters in dispute and unevidenced assumptions."
Depends on what you mean by "evidence". Certainly there are some beliefs that can't be empirically valiadated in the same way we validate the idea that certain elementary particles exist. That doesn't mean they exist without foundation. The problem is that in, e.g., Trotskyist and Lenninist ideologies, these beliefs are held as dogma (e.g., the inevitability of the triumph of the proletariate). That is what makes them functionally identical to religions, even if they don't harbor explicitly supernatural beliefs.
"...if the premises and reasoning are correct, then the conclusions are almost certainly correct -- unless you have some way of explicitly showing the falsity of the premises or reasoning?"
On most important matters, there is no way conclusively to show the truth or falsity of various premises. For example (and this example is overly simplistic but makes the point), most of us agree and value both liberty and equality. If one values liberty more, s/he is more likely to be a capitalist; if one values equality more, s/he is more likely to be a socialist. I can make a valid argument either way, even though I favor free markets for a variety of reasons. If you disagree, should I think you somehow inferior?
"While some things can be reasonably disagreed on because their truth value is complex or undecidable, in other cases the truth value is so clearly wrong that to hold it is indeed at the very least delusional.
I agree in principle, but all of us are far too prone to think our own preferences are clearly right and that those who oppose us are clearly wrong. Colloquially, I think that socialists are nuts. Their ideas make no sense to me. But I'm not prepared to say they're really delusional. Misguided? Yes. Delusional? No.
"So. Do you not disagree with him? And would you not call him insane, and evil, for his beliefs?"
I do disagree with him. Profoundly. But what made him evil was not his beliefs -- it was his actions.
Yeah! That's my job!
"Yeah! That's my job!"
Touche'.
The problem is that in, e.g., Trotskyist and Lenninist ideologies, these beliefs are held as dogma (e.g., the inevitability of the triumph of the proletariate). That is what makes them functionally identical to religions, even if they don't harbor explicitly supernatural beliefs.
So then the belief that all human life has intrinsic value would have to fall under that same heading. Or perhaps that pain is inherently bad. There are a lot of things that the majority of atheist, or at least the majority of atheists on this site, take as dogma in the same exact way. Often times these are beliefs that few, if any, would question as not being true, like the above about human life, but I think we generally have established that how many people believe something has no affect on whether it is true or not. At the least we must admit that everyone here has an ideology that includes non-validatable beliefs about the nature of reality. That or they simple have no beliefs.
"So then the belief that all human life has intrinsic value would have to fall under that same heading. Or perhaps that pain is inherently bad."
Seeing as though I don't agree with either of these notions, I don't see why they are adequate examples of "dogma" that atheists hold. I agree in general that axiomatic assumptions are necessary, but to classify things like dialectic materialism as axiomatic assumptions requires a veeeery lax standard for what kinds of axioms can be admitted.
That's an example where the truth values are complex; they are dependent on lots of different variables and social conditions. And yes, I think it might be possible to disagree politely.
Yet, in taking a particular position, have you not determined, in your own mind, that all other positions are inferior to that one, and that those who might take those positions are themselves inferior in either reasoning or values?
Exactly. You think them inferior, arrived at by inferior reasoning and values.
Mm. Yet the difference is one of degree, not kind. "Delusional", when used colloquially, can indeed mean "misguided".
Is it not the case that beliefs guide actions?
That's a lot of fallacies for one post, Icky, but I don't need to go beyond one: your claim here is unsupported and unevidenced.
um, define delusion for me.
you believe in a sky daddy, right?
got any evidence for your sky daddy?
no?
then it's a delusion by definition.
adherence to a delusion defines one as being delusional.
simple.
continuing adherence to a delusion AFTER it becomes clear there is no evidence to support it is irrational.
care to try again?
While Ichthyic's tone is rather rude
intentionally so. I have no respect for the man, so why should I be polite?
I'm merely telling it like it is.
If you really believe Santa is real, that is a delusion. If you insist on doing so in the face of the obvious evidence to the contrary, that is irrational.
you can call it rude if you like, but I call sinny's entire argument "rude" to those who actually DO think rationally.
Is it not the case that beliefs guide actions?
expect a scottsman's fallacy in response from sinny.
Is it not the case that beliefs guide actions?
Well, yes, but that's a rather simplistic way to look at it. But it is completely possible to have beliefs that are totally justified, from an empiricist point of view, that lead to actions that others, even those here, would consider heinous. Experience also guides action. As much if not more so than beliefs.
I have no respect for the man, so why should I be polite?
Actually, I find myself inclined to disagree with people simply based on their tone. I wouldn't go so far as to agree or disagree based on tone, but it does take several moments to get past scathing and rude remarks to see what it is that is really being said. Being rude is distracting, and does your words injustice. Its not backing down on your ideals, simply avoiding things like name-calling.
My two cents anyway...
"um, define delusion for me.
Generally, a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, particularly as a symptom of mental illness.
"you believe in a sky daddy, right?
Wrong.
"got any evidence for your sky daddy?"
I don't have any sky daddy, but I believe my theism to be adequately supported.
"then it's a delusion by definition."
Even if my theism were unsupported, it still wouldn't be delusional. Unevidenced beliefs (e.g., that all people should have the same civil rights and liberties) are not necessarily false. Moreover, you have provided no invalidating evidence to my belief and shown no basis for my being mentally ill. Indeed, since mental illness is largely predicated upon what is the norm, definitionally atheists are much closer to mental illness than theists, being so much further from the norm (not that I'm arguing that atheists are mentally ill per se).
"simple.
In your case, simply and clearly erroneous, but I appreciate the effort. Really.
"care to try again?
If you can't do better than this, Icky, it risks boring us all to tears.
I don't have any sky daddy, but I believe my theism to be adequately supported.
let us independently evaluate your evidence, then.
c'mon, let's see it.
Unevidenced beliefs (e.g., that all people should have the same civil rights and liberties) are not necessarily false.
wrong.
those aren't unevidenced beliefs. we have evidence to support whether or not civil rights and liberties are beneficial to specific societies and cultures.
it's called history. you should check it out sometime.
again, you are making invalid comparisons, trying to make equal all ideologies and belief sytsems, when we DO have evidence to evaluate their value.
which is why many beliefs have fallen by the wayside.
or should i start reading the bumps on your head?
"Yet, in taking a particular position, have you not determined, in your own mind, that all other positions are inferior to that one, and that those who might take those positions are themselves inferior in either reasoning or values?"
Believing your position to be inferior is a far cry from believing you to be inferior.
"Is it not the case that beliefs guide actions?"
Sure, but only in part. Plus, different beliefs cut in different directions (which is why tolerance makes sense) and, while beliefs influence actions, they don't necessarily determine actions.
Believing your position to be inferior is a far cry from believing you to be inferior.
and yet, what would you rationally conclude if someone insists on maintaining an inferior position?
you make these judgements all the time.
it's why we vote.
it's also involved in mate choice.
stop lying to yourself.
And yet, there's that statement that you think socialists are nuts; a definitive assertion of inferiority. How is that consistent with not believing them to be inferior?
And yet, here you are. Your posting of comments to this thread; this weblog — those are actions, right? And are they not the result of your beliefs?
I agree that the beliefs alone aren't the cause of your actions; there's also the emotions involved. Obviously, the original post and following comments invoked sufficient emotion to act, and therefore, you acted. Yet were those emotions not aroused by your beliefs as well; by what you believe to be true and what you believe to be not true?
Getting back to Stalin for a moment — in his case, he did not just believe in Bolshevism; he also believed, strongly, that violence in the service of promoting and defending Bolshevism was correct and proper. That is, he believed in taking a certain course of action.
If you believe a certain course of action should be taken, then is it not the case that your beliefs will determine your actions? Although I think that the belief must be coupled with strong emotion as well. Someone who has a belief but never acts on it either has conflicting beliefs, or the emotional impetus isn't sufficiently strong.
I strongly suspect that this is not the case. I bet that if you were to lay whatever internal argument you use out, there would be somewhere in there the logical equivalent of dividing by zero.
Um. As Ichthyic rudely but correctly points out, this statement contains a category error.
"God exists" is a statement which is either true or false.
"All people should have the same civil rights and liberties" is a statement of principle. It is neither true nor false in and of itself, but only has meaning as a guide to behavior, and in how closely it is adhered to.
Now, the statement "All people have (that is, they have been granted) the same civil rights and liberties" can be either true or false. That is, it is at least theoretically possible to examine the set of "all people", and in comparing them, see what rights and liberties they have, and whether those rights and liberties are equal to each other.
You're not? Whew. Good choice, cuz you're in danger of going down a very wrong (and specious) road there, mister. If anything, you'd be playing right into the hands of the evil atheists. Definitionally, cultural and religious beliefs are explicitly and specifically exempted from the clinical definitions of delusional disorders, solely because of their cultural context and ubiquity. Please note, too, that nowhere in the DSM-IV will you find the suggestion that absence of delusions, or any other position that in no way conforms to the definition of a delusional disorder, qualifies as a mental illness by sole virtue of its being exhibited by a minority.
(Didn't we cover this ground a few months ago, in a discussion about whether Dawkins meant "delusion" in the lay sense or in the clinical sense?)
"let us independently evaluate your evidence, then. c'mon, let's see it."
Ickster, in this context it's not my burden to do so. The claim that I'm irrational and delusional is yours so its your burden to support it. Sheesh.
"we have evidence to support whether or not civil rights and liberties are beneficial to specific societies and cultures."
Read more carefully, Icky. The issue at hand isn't whether civil rights and liberties to all are "beneficial," it's whether such an approach is right or best. Kindly, then, provide me with your (apparently) conclusive evidence that granting the same civil rights and liberties to all is right as opposed to, say, favoring the more intelligent over the less intelligent. Take your time.
"again, you are making invalid comparisons, trying to make equal all ideologies and belief sytsems, when we DO have evidence to evaluate their value."
Wrong again. You keep conflating a lesser quality of evidence with no evidence and suggesting that your evaluation of the evidence is the only reasonable one possible.
"and yet, what would you rationally conclude if someone insists on maintaining an inferior position?"
Ick, despite Bach's obvious status as the greatest composer of all time, I don't think someone to be mentally ill for preferring Beethoven.
"And yet, there's that statement that you think socialists are nuts; a definitive assertion of inferiority. How is that consistent with not believing them to be inferior?"
Experience has taught me otherwise. It's an advantage of middle age.
"If you believe a certain course of action should be taken, then is it not the case that your beliefs will determine your actions?"
Spot the fallacy. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
"As Ichthyic rudely but correctly points out, this statement contains a category error."
No, because we don't have objectively conclusive evidence either way.
"You're not? Whew. Good choice, cuz you're in danger of going down a very wrong (and specious) road there, mister."
I need to pick my battles with you very carefully, Kseniya.
Are... are you insane? Haven't you ever heard of John Tesh?
"Haven't you ever heard of John Tesh?"
I snorted all over my keyboard. I must be insane....
Hmmm, I'm not sure if you're humoring me, or conceding a little ground here. Anyway, you didn't pick this one, I did. Heh. (Not that I think of you as an enemy combatant...)
It seems we did cover this ground before. (This is by no means a definitive analysis - just the best I could come up with at the time.)
Anyways, I find it interesting that religious beliefs are given a pass, whereas atheism, despite its minority standing, does not merit a mention.
It is relative, though. If atheists were one in a million, atheism would probably be viewed a diagnosable (but probably not treatable - LOL) condition.
But they're not, so it's not.
Hey, we can play "what if" all day. You know, like, "What if God decided to put an end to all this horrible bloody bickering, and came down and showed hisself. Wouldn't that be awesome?"
"But they're not, so it's not."
My view that both theism and atheism can be reasonable choices based upon the evidence, and neither are appropriately categorized as mental illness.
"Hey, we can play 'what if' all day. You know, like, 'What if God decided to put an end to all this horrible bloody bickering, and came down and showed hisself. Wouldn't that be awesome?'"
It suppose it could be awesome, quite literally, but I don't think I'd prefer it. I like to think that God has too much respect for us than to be the cosmic dictator fundies (both theist and atheist) imagine Him to be and that we honor His image best by making the effort to figure things out for ourselves. Talk about a minority view....
If delusion is belief sans evidence and/or against evidence and you provide no evidence for your belief, then it is a reasonable conclusion that you have no evidence and are indeed delusional. There is a legal term, which escapes my memory at the moment, of this type of situation. The onus is indeed upon you to clear your name.
"If delusion is belief sans evidence...."
It's not.
"...or against evidence...."
That's closer, but it also requires invalidating evidence having been produced.
"...and you provide no evidence for your belief, then it is a reasonable conclusion that you have no evidence and are indeed delusional."
It's not reasonable unless I have a burden to do so. It's Icky's claim and Icky's burden. If he doesn't meet his burden (and he hasn't even attempted to), game over.
Your claim of evident belief and failure to provide the evidence you've claimed to have is Ichthyic's evidence. Burden met. Your turn.
And that is dependent upon the specifics of your theism. Of course I suspect you're not going to share the specifics of that either, so as to protect it.
Forget the silly notion about "rationality" or "enlightenment values". You simply want democracy until the point where "the mob" disagrees with you. Freedom and free will involves the possibility of evil whether you come from a christian or atheist perspective. The question is where you rank freedom, especially freedom of thought, in the list of things you consider transcendent goods.
If in high school, ID was taught as an alternative, and there was argument, evidence, and the rationality in the form of rational discussion you at least give some recognition to as a good, some students will choose to believe in ID. Some do in spite the censorship and the index of books banned in schools, and probably because of it (No dad, it isn't Penthouse, it's Behe!).
The question becomes do you believe in freedom of thought - which means people will choose to be wrong or ignorant - or believe that it should be chosen in a democratic forum like a legislature, or imposed by an elite oligarchy like our Supreme Court.
I find it hard to take seriously criticism of the treatment of Galileo (besides the actual history) when those who complain do as bad or worse to those they consider heretics or dissenters.
If reason and truth are so powerful, they should win in open combat.
Censorship is the weapon of cowards - both Christian and Atheist.
Exactly, tz! That's why I also think the phlogiston theory should be taught as an alternative in chemistry classes. Let the students decide for themselves!
"Elite Oligarchy" - that's cute. Did you hear that on Limbaugh?
You overlook the fact that ID has no place in the science classroom other than as an example of pseudoscience. If you want to teach ID as an "alternative", you then must teach Astrology (et cetera, ad nauseum) as alternatives to the actual sciences they prefigure or impersonate.
You also overlook the fact that any individual is free to pursue the, ah, rigors of ID on their own time. Please examine the difference between exercising academic standards, and ideologically-driven book-burning.
Sinbad:
I hear you, but you're not considering all the possibilities here. (Fallacy of the Excluded Middle?) At one end of the spectrum we have The Hairy Thunderer, and at the other we have The Ineffable Cosmic Muffin. I'm not proposing that God come down and assume his role as Cosmic Dictator, nor is that a necessary solution to the problem of The Deadbeat Deity. There is a middle ground.
We're like a playroom of children who've been left alone for eight hours, with plenty of books, toys, knives and clubs with which to entertain ourselves. Some of us believe there are Parents upstairs, and those beliefs (and the accompanying understanding of what the Parents want us to do) take many forms, while others have stopped believing entirely. In any case, many of us are at each others' throats over all kinds of issues. It's a freaking mess down here!
What I contend is that we, being all God's children, are suffering from neglect.
I'm in favor of allowing children (and by metaphorical extension, of course, people everywhere) to work out their problems and differences themselves, but that's not always possible, and the responsible adult in authority HAS to step in. That's what's not happening. God needs to make an appearance, if only to clear up a few key misconceptions.
(And by "make an appearance" I don't mean as a pattern on a grilled cheese sandwich or as a water-stain on the drywall of a service-station restroom.)
"Your claim of evident belief and failure to provide the evidence you've claimed to have is Ichthyic's evidence. Burden met. Your turn."
You obviously misunderstand proof burdens.
Icky's claim is that I'm "both delusional and irrational." It's his obligation to support it, period. The fact that I do claim evidence in support of my beliefs is irrelevant -- it doesn't free Icky from his burden.
"Of course I suspect you're not going to share the specifics of that either, so as to protect it."
As it happens, I've shared my views on this subject many times publicly, including here. But I needn't share them in this context (at least not yet), because it's Icky's burden, not mine.
water-stain on the drywall of a service-station restroom
yeah...that stain might be water in the Ladies' Room, but...
At one end of the spectrum we have The Hairy Thunderer, and at the other we have The Ineffable Cosmic Muffin
Deteriorata!
I'm afraid that's not my phone number.
If God existed and was a responsible parent, religion would not exist.
If that were true, you would have said that you used to think socialists were nuts. Your use of the present tense suggests otherwise.
Your complete failure to address the argument certainly looks like a fallacy.
Ben Stein?
Sigh. You still don't seem to get it.
But I see that you admit that there is no objectively conclusive evidence for God.
So what have you got? Objectively inconclusive evidence? Subjectively conclusive evidence? Or objectively conclusive lack of evidence?
( "We don't demand solid facts! What we demand is a total absence of solid facts. I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel!" )
"What I contend is that we, being all God's children, are suffering from neglect."
To extend your metaphor a touch....
If my children are 35, unemployed, and insist on playing dangerous games in my basement playroom, should I stomp down the stairs and force them to clean up and play nice or should I force them to make adult decisions and live with the consequences of those decisions?
"If that were true, you would have said that you used to think socialists were nuts. Your use of the present tense suggests otherwise."
Recall my use of the word "colloquially." In my view, socialism has been thoroughly discredited and makes so sense. Experience has taught me that some well-intentioned and very smart people will disagree. I strive to be sufficiently charitable to them so as to recognize that what I perceive to be error in no way makes them inferior.
"Your complete failure to address the argument certainly looks like a fallacy."
If you will kindly describe the argument I have failed to address I will respond.
"But I see that you admit that there is no objectively conclusive evidence for God."
It's not any type of admission, but I've never claimed otherwise.
"So what have you got? Objectively inconclusive evidence? Subjectively conclusive evidence? Or objectively conclusive lack of evidence?"
In my view, the first two.
Hey, wait a minute. How can diametrically-opposed viewpoints both be reasonable choices based upon the evidence? If there is any evidence for god(s), then atheism is an unreasonable choice. In that absense of such evidence, theism is an unreasonable choice. Are you saying that there's no hard evidence either way, but both viewpoints are plausible and therefore reasonable?
I note that both your options include force...
However, the second option appears to consist of ignoring them. Even if they both claim that you support their side of things? Even if they both explicitly call on you for aid?
The least you could do is yell down that they're both wrong and that you aren't going to help either of them, dammit.
Oh, and your description of your children being "35, unemployed, and insist on playing dangerous games in my basement playroom" implies that you're a really, really, really, really bad parent.
Beliefs and emotions (often caused by beliefs) lead to actions.
(I guess that question got answered as I was composing.)
Now, this:
Well, that's a very good question, and the answer will reflect many things, such as ones concept of the relationship between god and humanity. But I see you've only provided two possible answers, both of which rely on the concept of "force". The problem, as I've described it, is that a third thing is actually happening: NOTHING. Nothing, in the face of all kinds of troubles stemming from the fact that people have varying ideas about what god wants of us, how god has instructed us to live our lives, and, indeed, what (and even IF) god actually is.
God has walked away, leaving only an outdated set of instructions, the threat of hell as a consequence of disobedience, and a vague doctrine of free will and personal choice.
Also, the grown-child analogy fails because Christianity stands on the foundation of God's absolute authority and ultimate judgement. What you're advocating is a parental letting-go (and passing on) of responsibility - something I'm all for, and the god of my imaginings (if I even have one, which I may or may not) is an entity who would advocate and practice exactly that, in the hopes of meeting its "children" one day as equals - or at least peers - adult to adult.
This is, as you say, a minority viewpoint.
However, the majority viewpoint embraces the authoritarian god and assumes a position of subservience to that god, which in the absense of authoritative oversight and direction, seeds and breeds uncertainty and fear - and all that follow from those unhappy states.
(Yes, doing nothing "forces" us to either clean up our act or not, but it's not the same thing as actively intervening in some way. I don't think total neglect qualifie as Tough Love, even when the children are grown. Does it?)
I think this could use a qualifying "going under the assumption that the Christian myth were true", just to make it clear.
I mean, it's kind of implicit, but people can misunderstand in all kinds of ways.
Actually, if the kids are as messed up as described, another possible implication (besides bad parenting originally, as I already posted) is that the kids have sufficient mental problems that they need extra care anyway.
"How can diametrically-opposed viewpoints both be reasonable choices based upon the evidence?"
Because the evidence is inconclusive.
At the risk of being repetitive, for most important things in life, the evidence is inconclusive, substantial interpretation of the evidence is required, and a reasonable case can be made for any number of possible choices.
"If there is any evidence for god(s), then atheism is an unreasonable choice.
So if there's any evidence that you committed a murder (say, it's established that the murderer wore a red shirt and you were wearing a red shirt and were in the area that day), then believing that you weren't the murderer is an unreasonable choice?
"In that absense of such evidence, theism is an unreasonable choice."
What's your evidence that it is right for civil rights and liberties be equal and available to all? Is it unreasonable to so believe anyway?
"Are you saying that there's no hard evidence either way, but both viewpoints are plausible and therefore reasonable?"
No. I think there's "hard" evidence pointing in both directions, but the evidence is objectively inconclusive. It's sufficient to convince me, but I recognize that reasonable people can and do differ on the subject.
"The least you could do is yell down that they're both wrong and that you aren't going to help either of them, dammit."
I think He has and does. The problem is that it doesn't take the form we want and expect and we tend not to want to listen.
Actually your claim is very relevant. Ichthyic claims that you are delusional ie. you believe something without evidence. That is the definition Ichthyic gave. And then irrational, continuing the belief when it has been pointed out there is no evidence. You have somewhat disputed the definitions, but you also contested you have evidence. This is the point where you have the burden on yourself. Your claim is to this point unsupported, leaving Ichthyic the upperhand in whether or not you are in fact delusional. Due to the definition used for irrational, whether it is true or not is entirely dependent upon whether you are delusional.
Now, if Ichthyic wished to assert that you were delusional by your definition, then you would be correct that the burden would not be yours, but that has not come to pass.
In my view, socialism has been thoroughly discredited and makes so sense.
Nonsense. Social democracy is alive and well. If socialism has been "thoroughly discredited", why do so many countries have flourishing national healthcare?
Experience has taught me that some well-intentioned and very smart people will disagree. I strive to be sufficiently charitable to them so as to recognize that what I perceive to be error in no way makes them inferior.
They might prefer actual arguments against socialism instead of condescension. But first make sure that you understand that socialism does not equal communism.
"Oh, and your description of your children being "35, unemployed, and insist on playing dangerous games in my basement playroom" implies that you're a really, really, really, really bad parent."
My guess is you don't have much parenting experience because, except for the living in my basement part, I disagree because of what I've seen. I've been blessed. My oldest is married to a wonderful woman and in graduate school. My middle child graduates from a top university with all kinds of honors this spring, and my youngest has most of the top schools in the country actively trying to convince him to attend, having already offered admission. I think he'll go to Berkeley but it's nice to have HYP all as back-ups. None of the three has caused any significant problems or gotten into any real trouble. All have been responsible and made mostly excellent choices. I'm unequivocally proud of each of them. But I've been around enough and seen enough to know that it could surely have turned out differently. Many good parents have kids who insist on making lousy choices. Poor parenting decisions often contribute to those problems, but not always.
"Beliefs and emotions (often caused by beliefs) lead to actions."
I have already agreed that they do. Other factors (e.g., experience) contribute too. But if one believes in volition (and I do, even though materialism requires that it not exist -- the laws of cause and effect being relentless after all), they don't determine the actions.
"The problem, as I've described it, is that a third thing is actually happening: NOTHING. Nothing, in the face of all kinds of troubles stemming from the fact that people have varying ideas about what god wants of us, how god has instructed us to live our lives, and, indeed, what (and even IF) god actually is."
I've already dealt some with this above, but that's not the way I see it. As you know, I was an atheist for a number of years over 30 years ago, but am now a Christian. My greatest struggle as a believer as not seeing God act or the problem of evil or divine hiddenness or anything like that (although I ready acknowledge the problems they create). My biggest problem is simply paying attention. When (in the words of novelist Frederick Buechner) I actually pay attention and "listen to my life," I hear plenty. My problem is being a "doer of the Word" -- getting off my a$$ and loving my neighbor, caring for the least of these and aiding the Samaritan. In my view, truth isn't really propositional -- it's something to do. I'd often like to claim ignorance, but we all really understand a lot of it a lot of the time (the key to Romans 1 in my view), and I don't do nearly enough of it.
Then God fails as a reasonable and responsible parent.
If you know that your children understand English (and only English), and speak English very well, would you start yelling at them in frigging Harrapan or Rapa Nui when you had something important to say?
If someone talked to you in Vinča or Old Elamite, would you listen, if you had no idea what it meant?
"That is the definition Ichthyic gave."
And it's clearly erroneous, as I have already pointed out and as any dictionary will show.
"You have somewhat disputed the definitions, but you also contested you have evidence."
I noted that I have evidence, but it's beside the point unless and until Icky supports his claim. This isn't rocket science.
"Nonsense. Social democracy is alive and well."
I have already noted that reasonable minds can differ.
"They might prefer actual arguments against socialism instead of condescension."
Puh-leeeze. I have those arguments often, but the substance of those arguments is entirely irrelvant in this context. I was merely using an example away from the atheist/theist debate.
"But first make sure that you understand that socialism does not equal communism."
Who's being condescending now?
"Then God fails as a reasonable and responsible parent."
The prophet Micah summed up our responsibility pretty nicely: do justice, love mercy and walk humbly. It isn't hard to understand (if difficult consistently to practice). Really.
That's not God speaking. Those are the words of a human mortal, long dead.
If that's what God means, then God should be able to tell that to people, in every generation, in their own language, directly.
So God should be leading by example, and doesn't. As I said, neither reasonable nor responsible.
And of course, it ignores all of the other things that God is alleged to have said, like "kill all of these people over here, sparing not a single one, not even the women, nor the children, nor even the animals".
Owlmirror @ 127:
... a practice now known as "genocide" -- which term was coined to describe the slaughter of the (partly in-name-only) descendants of the same people who carried out the earlier slaughters, "only following orders" from the same deity now being urged upon us as a moral and ethical guide.
There's irony upon irony in that.
Come now: if (a) that deity were real and presently embodied on the earth, and (b) the Bible could be taken as reliable evidence of events, wouldn't the appropriate next step be a war crimes trial for repeatedly ordering genocide?
No statute of limitations; universal jurisdiction; so this would apply whenever and wherever "He" showed up.
Right there is sufficient explanation for God's refusal to appear and prove "His" existence: "He's" evading arrest and prosecution.
"If that's what God means, then God should be able to tell that to people, in every generation, in their own language, directly."
I get that if you were God you'd do things differently. I prefer to be to treated like an adult, but you're obviously entitled to your your view.
Deliberate mystification is treating people like adults? My,my, religionists do have some curious notions, don't they. Anyway, there is a more parsimonious explanation available for "God"'s mysterious failure to communicate in a straightforward way...
You should check with a dictionary or two before making such a decidedly false.
Very well, if all you have is evasion then I'll just leave it at that. You've failed to defend yourself, which is slightly surprising given how easy it would be to do.
"You should check with a dictionary or two before making such a decidedly false."
Please. Note the following dictionary definitions, none of which characterize a "delusion" as a belief without evidence.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.asp…
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/delusion?view=uk
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=delusion
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=delusion&…
http://www.bartleby.com/61/67/D0116700.html
"Very well, if all you have is evasion then I'll just leave it at that."
If Icky can't or won't support his claim I win by default. But I'm not evading anything, my views on this subject have been published here, on my blog (now in hiatus) and elsewhere. If you really want to know, the information is readily available.
Uh-oh. Has the discussion really regressed to Webster?
A delusion is a false belief. Evidence is only relevant to the psychiatric definition, which states that the belief must be resistent to fact and reason. Belief that is not based on proof is called faith.
The question of whether or not religious beliefs are delusions (in the non-clinical sense) therefore rests not on the lack of supporting evidence or proof, but on their veracity. It seems purely a matter of opinion as to whether or not these are false beliefs. Clearly some atheists would argue that yes, they are false because there are no gods, but until fact and reason can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the gods in question do not exist, faith in the existence of god(s) cannot be pathologized.
This is problematic, because a) it's not clear what constitutes "reasonable doubt", and b) many theistic beliefs are highly resistent to fact and reason in another sense: they are, like so many paranoid and psychotic delusions, unfalsifiable. This may seem like good news to those who believe in the God of The Bible, but it may dismay them to realize that this exemption from pathology can be generally applied.
I have decided to become a Thorist. Thor, the Norse god of Thunder and Lightning, fell out of favor for a while but he's back with a vengence, as global weather patterns might suggest. The formation of lightning is imperfectly understood by science, and it's Thor what drives the atmospheric ionization engine! He's not the muscular Viking with the hammer - no, no, that's a colorful but obsolete, unsophisticated, and barbaric imagining of Thor - he's The Ineffable God In Charge Of... well... of Charge, dammit!
So I've got:
- an easily observed natural phenomenon
- solid naturalistic explanations for what lightning is
- but not for the exact mechanism of its initial formation
- a durable god of good reputation and long standing who, subtly and undetectably, influences the accumulation of ions that leads to lightning
I'd call it The Theory of Intelligent Discharge, and my Thor isn't any less plausible than The Hairy Thunderer. Go ahead - call me crazy. :-)
Oh, Sinbad, regarding the last paragraph of your comment #124. This reminds me of a friend of mine, a guy who hits his knees every morning to pray to start the day. He doesn't ask for stuff... things, events... As he puts it, his morning prayer is pretty much just this: "Reporting for duty, please advise." He's a sober guy, I dunno if he's religious in the conventional sense, I dunno if he's praying to Yahweh or to some ill-defined Higher Power, but it hardly matters, because all he's trying to do (IMO) is listen to his life. Sometimes when we meditate upon what we already know, our mind yields new answers.
"A delusion is a false belief. Evidence is only relevant to the psychiatric definition, which states that the belief must be resistent to fact and reason. Belief that is not based on proof is called faith."
I disagree. If a delusion is merely a false belief, what distinguishes it from a simple mistake? If I don't get the message that my wife will be home late, am I really delusional for believing that she'll be home at her regular time? I think not.
With respect to faith, I think it a mistake to focus on propositions. Faith is placed in someone or something so as to make evidence or proof beside the point or unnecessary.
"Sometimes when we meditate upon what we already know, our mind yields new answers."
God at work.
Just so. :-)
Well, it's rather uncommon for us to refer to such things as delusions. Your expectations have deluded you into believing that she will be home at the regular time, when in fact she will not. This delusion is easily corrected with a phone call. I agree it's silly to call a misunderstanding a "delusion" but it does seem to literally (if loosely) fit the definition.
Perhaps the solution here it not to alter the definition of "delusion" but to acknowledge that you do not believe she'll be home at her regular time - you expect her to be. Pehaps calling your doomed expectation a delusion is no more (or less) bizarre than calling that expectation a belief.
I think we should both admit we're splitting hairs here.
The point is that Ichthyic's definition of delusion as belief without evidence isn't supported by any dictionary definition I can find. He is defining faith.
It's not a mistake if what is at stake is a proposition. Is not your stated, wholehearted belief in the notion that all persons are created equal - a belief firmly held even in the absence of proof - a statement of faith in the validity of that notion?
Maybe you're being treated "like an adult".
Since you claim that God treats people like adults by not communicating with them clearly, then obviously you, "as an adult", have the responsibility of knowing facts without receiving any clear message.
So you're saying that your father stopped talking to you when he thought you reached your majority?
And of course, you've stopped talking to your own children, now that they are adults?
Just curious over here.
The point is that Ichthyic's definition of delusion as belief without evidence isn't supported by any dictionary definition I can find. He is defining faith.
in this instance, that is correct.
Perhaps the solution here it not to alter the definition of "delusion" but to acknowledge that you do not believe she'll be home at her regular time - you expect her to be.
indeed that strikes at the point, the "expectation" is a continually tested hypothesis based on observational experience, not blind belief.
IOW, one actually HAS evidence in order to formulate a reasonable hypothesis that someone will arrive at the same time they did previously.
if one found that all of a sudden, said person was NOT arriving at the "expected" time, the hypothesis would be rejected.
if the same person stubbornly held to a BELIEF (had "faith") that the same person would arrive at the same time every day, contrary to the evidence that they did not, that would constitute the foundation of a delusion.
one could also label such a delusion irrational, but that might actually be redundant.
Clearly some atheists would argue that yes, they are false because there are no gods, but until fact and reason can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the gods in question do not exist
you're arguing from the converse.
strike that, reverse it, and you'll have the more accurate statement.
it's not atheists that need to prove gods don't exist.
For a novel definition of "reasonable". You might not think social democracy is that hot, but where do you get off saying it's not even alive?
And that's an excuse for talking out of your ass?
"Sometimes when we meditate upon what we already know, our mind yields new answers."
God at work.
if that's god at work, I guess I can stop bothering to try and think then.
idiot.
oh, wait, maybe sinny is trying to demonstrate the "value" of not bothering to use your mind to think, and instead allowing imaginary deities to create your deductions for you.
I gotta say, then, sinny, if your deductive reasoning exhibited in this thread is your sales pitch, I'm not buying.
"Is not your stated, wholehearted belief in the notion that all persons are created equal - a belief firmly held even in the absence of proof - a statement of faith in the validity of that notion?"
That's fair. Indeed, in that instance I don't even think there's evidence to support it, much less proof. Am I irrational for believing in political equality?
"So you're saying that your father stopped talking to you when he thought you reached your majority? And of course, you've stopped talking to your own children, now that they are adults?"
No and no. It's the way I talk with them that has changed. I no longer try to control or dictate as when they were little.
"indeed that strikes at the point, the 'expectation' is a continually tested hypothesis based on observational experience, not blind belief. IOW, one actually HAS evidence in order to formulate a reasonable hypothesis that someone will arrive at the same time they did previously."
You keep misunderstanding what evidence is. What you call my "expectation" here isn't based upon any evidence, but rather upon her character observed through past performance. As the financial services ads all say, past performance isn't indicative of future results. If I walk in the door at precisely 6pm for a thousand straight nights you are entirely reasonable to expect me to do so on night 1001, but without more there's no evidence that I will.
"You might not think social democracy is that hot, but where do you get off saying it's not even alive?"
Fundies tend to be such literalists in every context. It was a figure of speech reflecting my view of its intellectual health. M'kay?
"if that's god at work, I guess I can stop bothering to try and think then."
Exactly the opposite, actually.
"idiot."
Considering the source, I take that as a compliment. Thanks, Icky.
By the way, you can get a taste of why socialism is dead here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/books/review/O-Rourke-t.html?_r=2&ref…
So where did I say that I wanted control or dictation from God?
This entire thread has been you constantly misconstruing "If God exists, then God should clearly communicate with us" as meaning "If God exists, then God should dictate to us". You've claimed that God speaks in a different way, and cited a single, solitary Bible verse in support, ignoring the vast quantity of implicitly and explicitly contradictory verses that are also in the Bible.
Your thesis that God doesn't communicate clearly with us because he's treating us "like adults" does also have the implication that God ought to be communicating clearly to children everywhere. So, did God talk to you when you were a child?
The only reasonable inference from the contradictory Bible verses and the constant silence from God is that God doesn't speak to humans at all, and never has. There have only been humans, claiming to speak for God, and of course, since only the most deluded (colloquially or clinically, take your pick) or even insane people would claim to speak for God, the result is the contradictory mishmash of the output of all of those deluded people. And then people like you take the claim that God spoke to those people at their word, but oddly enough, when it comes time to actually take something away from the Bible, you carefully choose the verse you like, and ignore all of the rest.
The simplest, most parsimonious, most reasonable, explanation for the ongoing silence from God is that God has never spoken because God has never existed.
And you're deluded if you think otherwise. Maybe not clinically, but certainly colloquially.
"So where did I say that I wanted control or dictation from God? This entire thread has been you constantly misconstruing 'If God exists, then God should clearly communicate with us' as meaning 'If God exists, then God should dictate to us.""
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't see how an omnipotent deity speaking unequivocally and comprehensively to everyone in the universe about what they should do and how they should do it can be anything but dictatorial.
"You've claimed that God speaks in a different way, and cited a single, solitary Bible verse in support...."
I made no claim that I was offering a complete and comprehensive support.
"...ignoring the vast quantity of implicitly and explicitly contradictory verses that are also in the Bible."
Why should we be surprised when people trying to figure out who God is and what He wants or virtually anything else disagree with each other?
"The only reasonable inference from the contradictory Bible verses and the constant silence from God is that God doesn't speak to humans at all, and never has."
This view requires you believe that the roughly 90% of people (according to most polls I've seen) who think otherwise are decidedly inferior to you and to people who think like you (since no reasonable person can do other than think like you). Please note that history suggests that such belief in personal and group superiority is highly dangerous, not to mention arrogant.
"And then people like you take the claim that God spoke to those people at their word, but oddly enough, when it comes time to actually take something away from the Bible, you carefully choose the verse you like, and ignore all of the rest."
It's precisely because I don't take them at their word and don't see the Bible as remotely monolithic that I reject the idea that it should be seen as some didactic rulebook.
"And you're deluded if you think otherwise. Maybe not clinically, but certainly colloquially."
I often wonder what it is about our culture that seems to require that those with whom we disagree can't just be wrong, but they must be lying, irrational, delusional, mentally ill evildoers or some such. Exhibit A is any political campaign one cares to examine. Let's just say that I don't think we're the better for it.
It's not a matter of superiority, it's simply a matter of most people being deluded, about many things (and ALL of us, without a doubt, being deluded about some things). The history of thought shows clearly that non-delusion (even if we avoid talking about religion per se) is always a minority condition and has had to be attained by a millenial intellectual struggle- the "naked" human brain is not really well-adapted to understanding anything more than the immediate environment and how to extract food from it. I'm not at all impressed by an "argument" for any belief consisting merely in the fact that most people hold it. Truth is not determined by popular vote.
"Why should we be surprised when people trying to figure out who God is and what He wants or virtually anything else disagree with each other?"
Oh, I dunno. Maybe because he's supposed to be, you know, GOD. Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, all that. The more I hear from you, the less impressive he seems.
"This view requires you believe that the roughly 90% of people (according to most polls I've seen) who think otherwise are decidedly inferior to you and to people who think like you (since no reasonable person can do other than think like you). Please note that history suggests that such belief in personal and group superiority is highly dangerous, not to mention arrogant."
Appeal to consequences. And anyway, how many of those 90% actually claim to have been spoken to by God? As opposed to simply believing he exists for other reasons or just going with the flow?
Sinbad,
No, of course not, and I trust you have not concluded that I was suggesting anything of the sort, and that your question is rhetorical.
However, you may not be taking the proposition of equal rights on faith, at least not to anywhere near an absolute degree. Clearly, people are not created literally equal - there is plenty of evidence that we are not - but we choose to believe that they are created with certain inalienable rights. There may be no evidence that this is true, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that acting as if it were true (or axiomatic) is a benefit to human society as a whole as well as to the individuals at all levels of society. Perhaps we believe in equal rights because we recognize these benefits; the tangible benefits are evidence that the belief is valid.
I wonder if your working definition of "evidence" is too narrow. In several places on this thread, you speak as if you consider evidence only as something that can be held in the hand, figuratively speaking. I don't really believe that you do, but as I said, you often speak as if you do. Patterns of events and behaviors can be evidence.
"No, of course not, and I trust you have not concluded that I was suggesting anything of the sort, and that your question is rhetorical."
It was.
"However, you may not be taking the proposition of equal rights on faith, at least not to anywhere near an absolute degree. Clearly, people are not created literally equal - there is plenty of evidence that we are not - but we choose to believe that they are created with certain inalienable rights. There may be no evidence that this is true, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that acting as if it were true (or axiomatic) is a benefit to human society as a whole as well as to the individuals at all levels of society. Perhaps we believe in equal rights because we recognize these benefits; the tangible benefits are evidence that the belief is valid."
You make sense to a point, but my concern is that rights indeed be inalienable. If they are merely predicated on being somehow "beneficial," they are not rights but privileges -- alienable if (and inevitably when) someone in power claims that removing them is really what's beneficial.
"I wonder if your working definition of "evidence" is too narrow. In several places on this thread, you speak as if you consider evidence only as something that can be held in the hand, figuratively speaking. I don't really believe that you do, but as I said, you often speak as if you do. Patterns of events and behaviors can be evidence."
Patterns can be evidence and more likely can lead to ways of looking for and at evidence (think CSI) but that's not the same as saying that past performance is indicative of future results. That Joe Hoops has made 100 free throws in a row gives me reason to think it likely that he'll make his next one, but it isn't evidence either way.
Hmmm, perhaps my working definition of "evidence" is too broad.
As for this:
True, true, but I don't mean to say that those rights are potentially alienable, or that they are predicated on anything at all. I may, however, have inadvertently conflated the rights themselves with the freedom to exercise those rights.
What I'm getting at is that we weren't in a position even to recognize the existence of those rights until we examined the differences between societies that granted the freedom to exercise them, and those that did not. Our belief that these rights are inalienable did not spring into existence from nothing.
This is not to say that our past ignorance of the inalienability of those rights rendered them alienable, just as a revocation of the freedom to exercise those rights would not render them alienable. After all, the whole idea rests on the notion that these rights are inalienable regardless of practice or belief.
I hope that makes sense. I haven't spent a lot of time thinking it through...
Sigh. You're doing it again. I wrote "communicate", you tacked on "about what they should do and how they should do it".
Was every communication with your children, when they were not yet adults, an unequivocal and comprehensive order about what they should do and how they should do it? If they asked a question, did you respond with a command?
How is clear communication; a yes-or-no response; an explanation; or even carefully-worded advice or a request, the same thing as a dictate?
Bah. 90% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Fine, you want a less absolutist phrasing? "The most reasonable inference from the contradictory Bible verses and the constant silence from God is that God doesn't speak to humans at all, and never has."
And you know, I think I'm more reasonable than all of those religious people because I used to be religious. And when I ask myself why I believed, the only answer I can come up with is mass psychology: indoctrination; social reinforcement; superstitious fear as a form of self-reinforcement; and occasionally, awe of a universe that is in fact enormous and enormously difficult to understand.
Seeing the works and writings of scientists and skeptics helped me to understand that while the universe is indeed enormous and difficult to understand, it is nevertheless possible to study it and understand parts of it. And what we have studied and understood shows, fairly clearly, that the traditions of our ancestors are stories, not collections of facts, and that there is no evidence whatsoever of the universe being the work of an intelligent entity, such as spoken of by those stories.
So yes, because I have seen the efforts by those who tried to understand the universe and reason from that understanding, I am absolutely certain that my position is more reasonable that those who don't bother thinking things through; who are still have the mental habits of superstition, tradition, indoctrination, and yes, delusion.
Says the one who is on record as saying: "Colloquially, I think that socialists are nuts."
How is that different from what I wrote?
Is there no idea or argument that you do think is insane, literally insane? For example, there are serial killers who claim that God wants them to rape and kill people. Are they insane? Or do they just have "opinions" that you formally and politely disagree with? Do you think that "insane" or "deluded" has no real meaning at all?
"How is clear communication; a yes-or-no response; an explanation; or even carefully-worded advice or a request, the same thing as a dictate?"
If the owner of the company you work for advises you to work on Sundays, would you feel dictated to?
"So yes, because I have seen the efforts by those who tried to understand the universe and reason from that understanding, I am absolutely certain that my position is more reasonable that those who don't bother thinking things through; who are still have the mental habits of superstition, tradition, indoctrination, and yes, delusion."
So those of us who have come to a different conclusion are superstitious, delusional nincompoops who couldn't possibly have thought things through?
"How is that different from what I wrote?"
You have quote-mined to suggest a false equivalence. In context, my point was that despite my first reaction being (colloquially) that socialists are nuts (meaning that their political ideas make not a lick of sense to me), when I take a step back I recognize that some good, well-intended and very intelligent people disagree, and I would be wise to remember that before I suggest that they are somehow inferior. Wrong? Absolutely. Mentally ill? Nonsense.
"Is there no idea or argument that you do think is insane, literally insane?"
Yup, but I'm much more concerned with actions than with ideas (intellectual freedom being a very good thing).
"Do you think that "insane" or "deluded" has no real meaning at all?"
It is precisely because I think they do have real meaning that I don't assume that the vast majority of people (pretty much everyone who disagrees?) is deluded or insane.
Do you see what you did just there? You shifted the goalposts of the analogy. Originally, for the sake of argument, God was a parent. A parent might get exasperated with their kids, but is supposed to still feel unconditional love for their child, even when they mess up, and again, will explain why they messed up, and how to do better next time.
Now you're saying God is an employer, a cold-blooded and profit-oriented CEO. But even a CEO has to communicate clearly with the employees. An honest CEO will tell them that on the one hand, if the employee does extra work, the company will do well, and the employee will be rewarded, and if they don't the company will do badly, and the employee will be fired.
If the CEO fires the employee without telling that they had to do extra work (and the extra work was all that they had to do to keep from being fired), then the CEO is an asshole.
Is that what you're trying to say? That God is an asshole? Or are we employees of God not actually in danger of being "fired" (or punished, or whatever the analogy actually stands for), in which case, if we know that, why shouldn't we blow off "an advisement" to do extra work?
I would never call someone a nincompoop just for believing in God. Where'd you get that from? But I think "superstitious" about covers things, inasmuch as it means "having a belief that makes no sense", or "weakly delusional".
I've known some pretty smart people, yet when they tried to explain their belief, the same thing happened with them that I see with you: Their arguments for their beliefs turned into incoherent, contradictory messes. The only conclusion that I can reach is that they can't possibly have thought their beliefs through with anything like the rigorous logic that they applied to their real-world area(s) of expertise.
And my point was that (colloquially) that theists are nuts (meaning that their religious ideas make not a lick of sense to me).
First of all, now you're the one making a false equivalence (again): between disagreement over a set of principles and values (how should governments be run; how should societies behave), and disagreement over things which can only be explicitly true or false (God either exists and has certain traits; or doesn't have those traits; or doesn't exist).
Secondly, you have not convinced me that you don't hold those who have differing political ideas to be inferior to you, at least a little. "Right" and "wrong" can be gradients rather than absolutes in the political arena. Do you think that someone who is in favor of national health care is wrong to the same degree as someone who thinks that Stalin was a great leader and we need more political leaders like him?
Inasmuch as beliefs influence actions, I think that those who are less willing to act on religious beliefs are less wrong than those who are; that those who agree that church and state should be separate (but pray religiously themselves) are less wrong than those think that those who think that religion (and of course, their religion) ought to be injected everywhere.
I gave a (deliberately) extreme example of something that I certainly think is literally insane, and you refused to respond whether you agreed or disagreed with that assessment. Can you respond now one way or the other?
If not, can you give an example of something that you really do think is insane? Anything at all?
"Do you see what you did just there? You shifted the goalposts of the analogy. Originally, for the sake of argument, God was a parent."
All analogies are imperfect. The point I was trying to make is that if someone with total power and authority over you makes a "suggestion," it's necessarily a command.
"Or are we employees of God not actually in danger of being "fired" (or punished, or whatever the analogy actually stands for), in which case, if we know that, why shouldn't we blow off "an advisement" to do extra work?"
If grace be true, why wouldn't it work? And we shouldn't blow off what we ought to do simply because it's the right thing to do. Do you only do the right thing if there's something in it for you?
"I've known some pretty smart people, yet when they tried to explain their belief, the same thing happened with them that I see with you: Their arguments for their beliefs turned into incoherent, contradictory messes."
You obviously think that, but you haven't shown it.
"The only conclusion that I can reach is that they can't possibly have thought their beliefs through with anything like the rigorous logic that they applied to their real-world area(s) of expertise."
You may reasonably think that folks like Plantinga are wrong, even profoundly so (as I do in certain instances), but you can't plausibly say that he hasn't thought things through.
"And my point was that (colloquially) that theists are nuts (meaning that their religious ideas make not a lick of sense to me)."
So you concede that we're not really (clinically) delusional or mentally ill. I'll count that as progress. Now take the step back that I do re atheists (or socialists or or or) and we'll be making a lot of progress.
"First of all, now you're the one making a false equivalence (again): between disagreement over a set of principles and values (how should governments be run; how should societies behave), and disagreement over things which can only be explicitly true or false (God either exists and has certain traits; or doesn't have those traits; or doesn't exist).
Since there's no conclusive proof as to either the existence or non-existence of God, the analogy works just fine (unless you have conclusive proof that God doesn't exist?).
"Do you think that someone who is in favor of national health care is wrong to the same degree as someone who thinks that Stalin was a great leader and we need more political leaders like him?"
Why does (or should) some different "level of wrongness" equate to inferiority?
"I gave a (deliberately) extreme example of something that I certainly think is literally insane, and you refused to respond whether you agreed or disagreed with that assessment. Can you respond now one way or the other?"
I'm not remotely qualified to offer a diagnosis on insanity. I'm prepared to point out evil (e.g., Stalin), however, plus behavior which is so evil that I suspect pathology (e.g., Stalin again). But evil isn't necessarily insane and it may be that Stalin was entirely sane (terrifying though that is to contemplate).
All analogies are imperfect because your logic is imperfect.
The point that I am trying to make is that it is a general ethical rule that someone with total power and authority over you has the responsibility to communicate clearly. Indeed, the more power and authority, the greater the responsibility.
It doesn't matter if the relationship is parent and child; CEO and employee; officer and enlisted; ruler and subject; teacher and student; master and servant; or indeed, totalitarian despot and abject serf: in all cases, if someone "has power" over someone else — that is, has the power to punish and reward — then if that someone with power has any benevolence and wisdom at all, that one with power is required, by the essence of ethics, to communicate clearly to the one who will be on the receiving end of that punishment or reward exactly what actions will bring punishment (and what the punishment will be) and what actions will bring reward.
To keep people in the dark about the consequences of their actions until after it's too late shows ignorance and/or evil. And/Or, in the case of the human examples above, the inability to communicate effectively. In the case of humans, of course, the lack and/or weakness of those traits would be at least understandable.
Therefore, if God exists, has power, has knowledge, and has benevolence, then God has the responsibility to communicate with the beings of the creation.
Since no such communication occurs, then either God has no benevolence, and/or God has no power, and/or God has no knowledge, and/or God does not exist.
The last case is the most parsimonious, and is obviously the one I think makes the most sense.
You're going to have to expand on that. I've heard of this "grace" concept, but it's exceedingly fuzzy. And I bet like many theological concepts, I could find some inherent contradiction in it.
Do you always know what the right thing is? Are there no situations where the "right thing" is at least murky, if not completely opaque?
If the right thing were indeed always clear, we wouldn't need a God to tell us what it was in the first place.
I think I'm getting there. We'll see.
Sure I can. The whole point of someone being delusional is that for all cases that the delusion covers, clear thinking just stops.
I'm pretty sure that's what I was trying to say all along. Although I'm starting to wonder now, a little.
To have the belief: "A non-material entity exists that created the universe" is in and of itself a sufficiently weak delusion that I have no real argument against it, other than the lack of evidence. My best argument against so far is that it has not been shown to be necessary for the universe to be a creation. I would certainly agree that that is not a clinical delusion, by itself.
However, I am starting to wonder if the real problem might be a stronger delusion about power and communication. Your constant excuses for God not communicating clearly with humanity are, as I think I have reasonably argued above, in contradiction with a presumed belief that God is powerful, intelligent, and benevolent.
But I would be willing to see if you have a reasonable counterargument.
Do you think it makes sense to choose the lesser of two evils? And if one evil is not inferior to another evil, why would you choose the lesser evil? And if any evil is not inferior to good, why would you choose the good?
Then why do you consistently argue against my diagnoses? How do you know that I am unqualified? Indeed, how do you know that anyone who isn't you is unqualified to make such a diagnosis?
Well, again, here's my diagnosis: While evil might not be necessarily insane (and what is evil, anyway? There's that whole dilemma of right, wrong, and gradients thereof again), sufficiently extreme evil is always insane.
In the case of Stalin, I think his insanity is demonstrated by his having a stated goal (creating a worker's paradise), and immediately using methods that were directly opposed to that goal. His use of violence and mass murder created enough immediate terror to make a state that was obviously not a paradise, and less directly, his use of violence created a social environment that meant that people were not clearly communicating with him; that is, they were too terrified to speak truth to power. Thus all of his efforts were doomed to failure; he could neither learn nor change in the face of new information. Not only was he insane, but his evil fed and increased his insanity.
"The point that I am trying to make is that it is a general ethical rule that someone with total power and authority over you has the responsibility to communicate clearly."
I think that God has communicated clearly, just not unequivocally. I prefer it that way since, in life as in business, I hate to be micromanaged.
"You're going to have to expand on that. I've heard of this "grace" concept, but it's exceedingly fuzzy."
Grace is the idea of unmerited favor -- that one should get what is needed rather than what is deserved.
"Do you always know what the right thing is?"
Nope, but I usually do and have the tools to try to work it out when I don't know.
"The whole point of someone being delusional is that for all cases that the delusion covers, clear thinking just stops."
The whole point of being a fundy is that the alleged right answer is so friggin' obvious that someone who thinks otherwise isn't just wrong, s/he's delusional.
"Do you think it makes sense to choose the lesser of two evils? And if one evil is not inferior to another evil, why would you choose the lesser evil? And if any evil is not inferior to good, why would you choose the good?"
You keep suggesting that one who holds an inferior idea is an inferior person. If you really believed that, then everyone in the world would necessarily be inferior to you!?
"Then why do you consistently argue against my diagnoses?"
You've offered no evidence that you're qualified to make it.
"Well, again, here's my diagnosis: While evil might not be necessarily insane (and what is evil, anyway? There's that whole dilemma of right, wrong, and gradients thereof again), sufficiently extreme evil is always insane."
I don't doubt that criminal insanity is possible and will defer to experts in that regard, but I generally oppose the cultural trend toward eschewing personal responsibility and accountability in favor of alleged illness and victimization.
"In the case of Stalin, I think his insanity is demonstrated by his having a stated goal (creating a worker's paradise), and immediately using methods that were directly opposed to that goal."
By that logic, the (many) internet (and other) atheists who claim to want to convert believers to their point of view but who spend a lot of time counterproductively telling their would-be converts that they're delusional, mentally ill, evil, etc., are insane.
Sigh.
You just contradicted yourself here. "Unequivocally" means "clearly"; "clearly" means "unequivocally" (at least when it comes to meaning.)
Since no communication is occurring at all, you're not being "managed", let alone micromanaged.
I assume you also object to performance reviews and manager feedback, since that's also "micromanaging", right?
That's still rather incoherent. Who determines what is needed? Who determines what is "deserved"? How do you know you have it?
Oh really? There's no decision you've ever made that you regretted afterward; no dilemma where any choice at all seemed equally bad; no situation where you didn't have enough information about the consequences, and therefore made the wrong choice?
If you "have the tools" to work out what the right thing is, do you know how to resolve such thorny problems as the Tragedy of the commons, and various analogs thereof?
If you do, then you really ought to publish it. It would be the right thing to do. Oh, wait. Why do you need me to tell you that?
Heh. Oh, the irony...
I have not suggested that. I have tried to stress, on the one hand, that wrong reasoning is by definition inferior, but on the other hand, it is possible to have wrong reasoning in one area, and correct reasoning in other areas.
How so?
Hey, maybe I just "have the tools to try to work it out when I don't know", to quote somebody or other.
This is another amusing irony. Above, I'm rejecting your ability to know right actions from wrong in all cases, because you aren't showing evidence. Here, you're rejecting my ability to know right reasoning from wrong, because you don't see the evidence.
I would suggest that right reasoning avoids contradiction, or clarifies apparent contradiction. I've noted your contradiction above; I am still waiting to see if you can clarify.
Well, one way of thinking about that is this: If someone does wrong because they are ill, that does not mean they necessarily get a pass. If the illness is treatable, then treatment is the correct course of action. If it is not treatable, then, depending on the severity of the illness, it may be necessary to keep that person out of society indefinitely; that is to say, permanent incarceration is the only way to avoid recidivism.
This is something I'm not completely sure of, and I'm willing to admit that uncertainty.
I haven't seen atheists call anyone "evil" just for believing in God, yet. Although perhaps from performing some action that follows from that belief, or from associated beliefs...
I realize that it's a bit clichéd, but: Do you think that those who were directly responsible for the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 were not evil?
And to address the rest of your comment: For the most part, I don't think that any atheist is out to "convert" believers directly. So I don't think your criticism is quite applicable, although it might not necessarily be the best tactic.
"You just contradicted yourself here. "Unequivocally" means "clearly"; "clearly" means "unequivocally" (at least when it comes to meaning.)"
No, the principles are clear (e.g., do justice, love mercy, walk humbly) even though the application of them is not always so clear. In my view, the process of figuring out how to apply the principles in difficult situations is more valuable than having certainty as to the right outcome.
"How do you know you have it?"
In my view, grace is a gift we all share.
"There's no decision you've ever made that you regretted afterward; no dilemma where any choice at all seemed equally bad; no situation where you didn't have enough information about the consequences, and therefore made the wrong choice?"
Of course, but I value the freedom of the process more than getting it right in every instance. Culturally, we have way too much "destination anticipation" (Are we there yet?) and way too little regard for the process and the journey.
"If you 'have the tools' to work out what the right thing is, do you know how to resolve such thorny problems as the Tragedy of the commons, and various analogs thereof?"
Carefully, prayerfully, thoughtfully, reasonably and deliberately.
My short-form answer to the problem is that it makes erroneous assumptions with respect to people acting in a self-interested fashion (reciprocal altrusism isn't nearly a sufficient explanation) and with respect to how additional resources can be created with sufficient personal and economic freedom.
"I realize that it's a bit clichéd, but: Do you think that those who were directly responsible for the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 were not evil?"
I think they were evil; I doubt they were insane.
"For the most part, I don't think that any atheist is out to 'convert' believers directly. So I don't think your criticism is quite applicable, although it might not necessarily be the best tactic."
That isn't my experience (and Dawkins admits to this goal in TGD). As I matter of polemics, I want those with whom I disagree to keep using foolish tactics. But as a public citizen, I would prefer civil and respectful discourse (one can offer courtesy to an opponent even when one finds his ideas repugnant).
[Is following along from the comparative safety of her bedroom]
I have no qualms about "proselytizing". I have just as much right to hope that people will give up their superstitions, and to try to bring that about by persuasion, as the superstitious have to hope that more people will swallow them, and to try to bring that about by persuasion.
And you've moved the goalposts yet again. The topic was God communicating with humanity; now you're bringing up general ethical principals. But since following ethics does not require God, and following God does not imply being ethical, then it obviously follows that God-belief and ethics have nothing to do with each other. Indeed, since you suggest that God does not assist in resolving ethical dilemmas, they can't have anything to do with each other by your own beliefs.
Heck, your statement quoted above could have been written by an atheist. Ethical principals can be stated fairly simply; the application is unclear because real-world situations are complicated and information is missing and difficult to process, and because humans do not always know the consequences of their own actions — even when those actions are theoretically made in accordance with the principals.
If you have certainty about the right outcome — and I mean genuine certainty, not just "feeling certain", then it obviously follows that you've figured out how to apply the principles.
And again, no God even necessary in the first place.
If you can't define it any better than saying that it exists, and there's no way to show how it exists, then it might just as well not exist.
Preference for your own freedom over doing the right thing is an example of common pride, and certainly seems selfish to me. The logical extreme is a deliberate preference for evil, since doing wrong to others is the greatest exercise of personal freedom over correct action. "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven", to quote somebody or other.
And it also seems rather childish to me, in some ways. How is your preference for your own freedom over doing the right thing different from the resentment of any adolescent chafing against parental efforts to instill ethical behavior? Heck, how is it different from a small child throwing a tantrum at having their freedom balked?
Other than the "prayerfully" part, any atheist could give the same exact answer. And why do you have "prayerfully" in there at all? I thought you said that having God provide clear communication regarding ethical dilemmas would be "micromanaging", which you said you hated?
Is a little internal consistency too much to ask for in this discussion?
"Erroneous assumptions"! Oh, look, all you ancient philosophers and modern economists and politicians, you just somehow missed that you were all making erroneous assumptions all this time. "Additional resources can be created"! Oh, hooray, everyone bring your sheep to the commons, we can just create additional resources because we've got sufficient personal and economic freedom!
Pft. The economic "solutions" of the bandar-log.
Actually, I seem to recall that Dawkins was quite clear that he was aiming his book at those who already had doubts about the sanity of religion.
The preface of The God Delusion:
"And you've moved the goalposts yet again."
No, it's the same point I've been making all along.
"The topic was God communicating with humanity; now you're bringing up general ethical principals."
Which God has communicated (among other things).
"But since following ethics does not require God, and following God does not imply being ethical, then it obviously follows that God-belief and ethics have nothing to do with each other."
That doesn't remotely follow. If these principles are universally true, we should be able to see them at work universally, whether God is honored by name or not. Only without an objective truth standard should we see huge variations in ethical values across cultures.
"Indeed, since you suggest that God does not assist in resolving ethical dilemmas, they can't have anything to do with each other by your own beliefs."
I've never asserted that God doesn't help.
"Heck, your statement quoted above could have been written by an atheist."
I hope so -- because it's universally true.
"Ethical principals can be stated fairly simply; the application is unclear because real-world situations are complicated and information is missing and difficult to process, and because humans do not always know the consequences of their own actions -- even when those actions are theoretically made in accordance with the principals."
Since you now concede that it can't all be laid out, the question is merely how much specificity you demand that God provide.
"If you have certainty about the right outcome -- and I mean genuine certainty, not just 'feeling certain', then it obviously follows that you've figured out how to apply the principles."
I'm not so arrogant as to claim infallibility.
"And again, no God even necessary in the first place."
And again, I hope not.
"If you can't define it any better than saying that it exists, and there's no way to show how it exists, then it might just as well not exist."
You asked how we can know we have it and I replied that I think we all have it. Did I misunderstand what you were asking?
"'Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven', to quote somebody or other."
Milton.
"Preference for your own freedom over doing the right thing is an example of common pride, and certainly seems selfish to me."
No, it's the difference between giving someone a fish and allowing him to fish.
"How is your preference for your own freedom over doing the right thing different from the resentment of any adolescent chafing against parental efforts to instill ethical behavior?"
Once again it sounds like you don't have much parenting experience. As a parent, I'm less concerned with my kids coming to the same conclusions I do than with them going about the process of making decisions in the right way. If they simply followed my dictates by rote they'd never learn good process.
"'Erroneous assumptions'! Oh, look, all you ancient philosophers and modern economists and politicians, you just somehow missed that you were all making erroneous assumptions all this time."
You've never read those criticisms? They aren't original to me.
"'Additional resources can be created'! Oh, hooray, everyone bring your sheep to the commons, we can just create additional resources because we've got sufficient personal and economic freedom!"
That you're not living in an agrarian economy "bringing your sheep to the Commons" either literally or metaphorically is proof positive that a market economy does in fact create new resources.
"The economic "solutions" of the bandar-log."
You might ask yourself what group tends to make the closest claim to "We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle!" Hint: everyone else is delusional, irrational....
"Actually, I seem to recall that Dawkins was quite clear that he was aiming his book at those who already had doubts about the sanity of religion."
Dawkins is clear about his goal for TGD, stated just before the section you quote above:
"If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down (p. 5)."
Not that there's anything wrong with that....
[long year-end; insufficient time for internetting and logic-chopping]
Absolutely false.
Every single religious work in the bible contains tales of God's actions and God's commandments; direct instructions meant to be followed by rote (as you suggest is the wrong way to go about teaching ethics).
In many of the tales, God directly performs unethical acts, such as lying and mass murder. The actions and punishments are completely inconsistent, demonstrating no clear ethical principle — other than "might makes right".
The same goes for the various commandments. While many of them are certainly in accord with ethical principles, there is no general principle which is stated that they are derived from. Further, no context for interpreting the commandments in different situations is given, and of course, all too often the punishments for breaking the commandments are all so completely extreme, as in the death penalty, as to utterly violate any ethical principle.
Later generations realized that the cruelty of the commandments was far too extreme, and tried to moderate them by reinterpreting them in light of a more general ethical principle. But that's external to the original words — and the original words, in all their harshness, still remain.
Sure it does. You yourself implied it earlier with everything you said.
Isn't that what I said? "God-belief and ethics have nothing to do with each other".
Although I am not sure what you mean by "universally true". They are universally felt, as emotions. And I think that "universally" needs to be qualified, given that there are variations in that feeling. In psychopaths/sociopaths, they may be felt weakly, or not at all. In the paranoid and fearful, any ethical feelings may be overwhelmed by the feelings of threat from others.
And yet we do see huge variations — there are cultures that are desperate, and/or tribal, and/or violent, and/or smugly complacent; there are cultures that greatly value compassion and generosity.
You've repeatedly rejected the idea that God ought to help. So what the hell are you talking about?
It's not just me demanding it, on a whim. The principles of ethics demand that one who has more information on a situation involving ethics, and the power to impart that information, does impart that information. It all derives from doing to others as you would have done unto you, if you were in their situation.
[I'm skipping the back-and-forth on grace]
Yes, I know who wrote Paradise Lost.
My words were too elliptic'lly said
Their thrust and point entered not thy head
If learning ethics thou be hatin'
Thy pride must be as great as Satan
False analogy. It's saying that you will fish, regardless of whether the method is rod and reel, driftnet, or dynamite. And you'll use whichever one you want, consequences and effects on others be damned.
I'm not a parent, but I have been parented. And I have observed the process of parenting, and I have been thinking carefully about the issue. As I have tried to make clear, the parent-child relationship is a generalization of any relationship between people which involves a strong power imbalance. A parent has the responsibility to instruct and care for the child; a god has the responsibility to instruct and care for the intelligent beings it created.
Since the care and instruction have not been forthcoming, there is no god fulfilling that responsibility.
Nuts. Process can be taught. And ethical instruction starts with dictates.
"Don't hit" is a dictate, meant to be followed by rote. "How would you feel if that were done to you?" is a question that teaches ethical decision processing. And if the process isn't learned, the question can be — must be — repeated. If there's additional information that can be imparted to clarify the situation, you impart it ("Hitting hurts! And they're smaller than you!"). It's simply the matter of understanding that others are as real as oneself, and of imparting that understanding.
And finally, once again, I note that God has only been recorded as giving rote instruction, and has not ever taught ethical decision processing, and made sure that the process was learned.
I don't have time just now to get into the tragedy of the commons; this has already taken too long. But I find that I can't resist a cheap shot (hey, I never claimed to be perfect myself:)
Why, yes, both religious zealots and fanatical libertarians tend to be rather smug, now that you mention it...
I don't see how that contradicts what I quoted, since that section clarifies "religious readers" to mean "religious readers who already have doubts about religion".