Ludwig Wittgenstein, considered by many to be the premier philosopher of the 20th century, believed that the proper task of philosophy was to make the nature of our thought and talk clear. Wittgenstein believed that the problems of philosophy were illusory and arose as a misunderstanding about language. While I think he greatly overstates the case, I agree that many problems not only in philosophy but in other areas result from the imprecise use of language.
I must confess that my own muddled use of language often contributes to this problem. When communicating with those who do not share my basic presuppositions, I often forget that we may not be using language in quite the same way. In order to help make the nature of our thought and talk clear, I want to examine a question that is essential to the analysis and comparison of worldviews: What is a religious belief?
In order to define the term in such a way that it is neither too broad nor too narrow, we must list all of the features that are true of all religious beliefs and true only of religious beliefs.* While this may appear to be an obvious point, we are often surprised to find what has been pruned when a definition is stripped to its essential components. Imagine, for instance, trying to define the concept of tree in a way that is limited to what is true for all trees but only true of trees. Paring the explanation down in such a manner would not only be difficult but leave us with a curious, and likely unsatisfying, definition.
What is true of trees will be equally so for religious beliefs. After we cut away the foliage and underbrush that are features of specific religious beliefs we are likely to be unimpressed by the bare, slender reed that remains. We should also expect to find that a minimally precise definition will have exposed the fact that some beliefs that we might have considered to be religious really are not, while finding that others are actually more religious than we might have imagined. Nevertheless, while we might be surprised, unsatisfied, or unimpressed, the important point is that we have defined the term correctly.
Let us begin by examining to features that are commonly (though mistakenly) believed to be essential to religious beliefs:
Religious beliefs require a belief in God or gods -- One of the most common misconceptions about religious belief is that it requires a belief in God or a supreme being. But such a feature would be too narrow because it would exclude polytheistic religions that do not recognize a supreme being. In fact, we cannot include the concept of god or gods at all since some religions (e.g., Brahmin Hinduism, Theravada Buddhism) are literally atheistic.
Religious beliefs are beliefs that induce worship or worship-related activities -- This feature is also defeated by the counterexamples of Brahmin Hinduism and Theravada Buddhism, neither of which practices worship. The same is true for the religious beliefs of some ancient Greeks such as Aristotle and later the Epicureans who thought the gods neither knew about nor cared about humans. They certainly felt no obligation to worship such apathetic beings.
Having excluded gods and worship from our definition, we are left with very few features that all religious beliefs could possibly share in common. As Roy Clouser asks, "What common element can be found in the biblical idea of God in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, in the Hindu idea of Brahman-Atman, in the idea of Dharmakaya in Mahayana Buddhism, and the idea of the Tao in Taoism?" The answer, he argues, is that every religious tradition considers something or other as divine and that all of them have a common denominator in the status of the divinity itself.
While many religions disagree on what is divine, they all agree on what it means to be divine. The divine is simply whatever is unconditionally, nondependently real; whatever is "just there." By contrast, everything nondivine ultimately depends for existence (at least in part) on whatever is divine. This idea of nondependence or its equivalent is the shared feature in all religious beliefs.
Clouser uses this common element to formulate a precise definition: A belief is a religious belief provided that it is (1) a belief in something as divine or (2) a belief about how to stand in proper relation to the divine, where (3) something is believed to be divine provided it is held to be unconditionally nondependent.
The conclusion we can draw from this definition is that everyone holds, consciously or unconsciously, a religious belief. For many of us, this will be as obvious as finding that our entire lives we've been speaking in prose. Others, though, will have a reaction similar to those who argue that while everyone else may speak with an accent, they themselves do not.
Although it may be true that not everyone has a religion (a system of religious beliefs, practices, and rituals), it would be rather absurd to believe that there is anyone who does not have a religious belief. This can be shown by focusing on a theory or belief that many people mistakenly believe to be the reverse of religion: materialism.
Although the idea of materialism has been around since at least the ancient Greeks, it has only recently been considered to be a non-religious idea. This is rather odd considering that it explicitly claims that matter (or some other physical entity) is unconditionally, nondependently real and draws conclusions about nature and humanity based on that belief.
Materialism, in fact, fits the definition more closely than some related beliefs, such as atheism. Just as monotheism claims that the number of gods is one and polytheism holds the view that the number is more than one, atheism simply claims the number of gods is zero. Because it merely takes a position on a nonessential element of religious belief, it would be erroneous to claim that atheism is necessarily a religious belief. Materialism, on the other hand, fits the definition in a categorical and clear-cut manner.
Clouser's definition is neither too broad nor too narrow, is applicable to every known religious tradition, and is logically forceful. Still, I don't suspect materialists to bend to its logic and admit that they too have a religious belief. At the risk of poisoning the well, I predict that many materialists will resort to special pleading or wrangling over the semantics of using the term "religious." But as Clouser says, "If you insist that whatever you believe to be divine isn't religious for you, you'll have to admit that for those of us who hold such a belief and admit its religious character, your belief is going to appear to be religious for reasons that are far from arbitrary." In other words, call the belief what you want -- it certainly looks like a religious belief.
*The definition, ideas, and general explanation of concepts in this post are derived from the work of Roy Clouser. I have, however, filtered it through my own interpretation and sprinkled in some of my own thoughts on the question. Anything coherent, obvious, reasonable, and logical should be attributed to Dr. Clouser. Anything incoherent, absurd, unreasonable, and illogical should be credited solely to me.
See more by Roy Clouser here:
http://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/clouser.htm
For post trying to use words carefully, you sure have an odd definition of "divine."
Here's how Merriam Webster defines it:
Etymology: Middle English divin, from Anglo-French, from Latin divinus, from divus god — more at deity
Date: 14th century
1 a: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god b: being a deity c: directed to a deity
Joe Carter wrote: I predict that many materialists will resort to special pleading or wrangling over the semantics of using the term "religious."
Missed it just a bit. Turns out the initial wrangling was over the word "divine".
The Myth of Religious Neutrality, Roy Clouser.
Collin
Hence, Huxley saw the need to found his own church, and evolution was the ideal cornerstone. It offered a story of origins, one that (thanks to progress) puts humans at the center and top and that could even provide moral messages. The philosopher Herbert Spencer was a great help here. He was ever ready to urge his fellow Victorians that the way to true virtue lies through progress, which comes from promoting a struggle in society as well as in biology--a laissez-faire socioeconomic philosophy. Thus, evolution had its commandments no less than did Christianity. And so Huxley preached evolution-as-world-view at working men's clubs, from the podia during presidential addresses, and in debates with clerics--notably Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford. He even aided the founding of new cathedrals of evolution, stuffed with displays of dinosaurs newly discovered in the American West. Except, of course, these halls of worship were better known as natural history museums. ~ Michael Ruse
This is rather odd considering that it explicitly claims that matter (or some other physical entity) is unconditionally, nondependently real and draws conclusions about nature and humanity based on that belief.
Interesting, but what if you believe nothing is nondependent? Certainly a scientifically astute materialist today would admit that the matter we get to play with here on earth depended on being forged in a star that went nova long before our sun formed. Certainly he would admit that matter depended on the accumulation of particles that resulted from the Big Bang. Before that the situation gets very fuzzy but lack of knowledge does not mean lack of existence. Suppose one believes the Big Bang was caused by some other event, evidence of what it was was destroyed by the Bang itself as far as we can tell, which was therefore caused by some other event and so on.
Would you then say that this type of person is holding 'cause and effect' to be divine?
If so it would seem that one would have to jump through many hoops not to have some type of religious belief. You either end up believing in some 'uncaused cause' (aka God) or you believe 'cause and effect' is nondependent.
Here I suspect lies a problem with your use of language. If its impossible to have a non-religious belief then it's odd to think its possible to have a religious belief. Everything you believe either reduces to 'cause and effect' or to 'uncaused cause', in essense we could take it a step more and say everything is 'nondependence'. It's just that some peole we call 'non-religious' just happen to have a different flavor of nondependence than, say, Scientologists, Mormons, or Catholics.
But what have you done!? Remember your mission was to create a definition that was neither too broad nor too tight!
But it seems you've stumbled upont a definition that makes not only all beliefs religious but even non-beliefs religious too!
bevets,
Nice try but if we take Joe's definition of divine/religious beliefs seriously then Huxley's being enamoured of evolution wouldn't qualify unless he believed evolution to be 'nondependent'. Do you have evidence that Huxley believed evolution to be 'nondependent' on matter itself or the laws of chemistry/physics? I don't think so.
You've established that Huxley thought evolution was very important but simply being a big promoter of what was then the 'next big thing' isn't in itself a religious belief.
Wittgenstein believed that the problems of philosophy were illusory and arose as a misunderstanding about language. While I think he greatly overstates the case, I agree that many problems not only in philosophy but in other areas result from the imprecise use of language.
Here's another question here, does Joe consider language to be 'nondependent'? The assumption Joe seems to have here is that this thing called language can describe this other thing called 'religious beliefs'. Does the language used to define 'religious beliefs' exist independently? It would seem so since we know we can use language to describe things that do not exist, cannot exist therefore language would seem to be independent of the 'material world'.
I wonder what Joe would say to the charge that he is really an idolter of language. Subconsciously does he really hold language to be divine above all else? I think this is a failing many bloggers and writers hold for obvious reasons. Maybe not a failing but perhaps an assumption they don't even realize they hold but we should explore the possibility no?
Boonton - you need to distinguish between temporal and phenomenological causes. Particles interacting through forces affect each others motion through time, and we can propagate a system through time forever, but that isn't the same as saying that the forces exist.
Non-religious belief is a belief in non-existence, which is something that people worry about. Thinking isn't a concept, it's a form of doing that leads to concepts, including paradoxically, concepts about thinking. Thinking isn't a concept because it is concrete and real. The thoughts we express are already abstracted away from reality because they are always expressed in terms of abstract language. But to hold a concept is to contrast it with it's alternative, which in this case is non-thinking. It's a somewhat vertiginous idea, not unlike driving at night and catching yourself wondering what's to stop you from pulling into oncoming traffic.
Does "Scientism" qualify as a religious belief according to Clouser's definition?
Instead of trying to define "religious belief" so that it includes atheism, and its handmaid, naturalism; wouldn't it be better to redefine the discussion to one of worldview? Is it possible for government to operate without a worldview? Is there any worldview which is truly neutral? If the answer to the previous two questions is "no", then can the government have a preferred worldview? If so, which one?
First, the minor misstep:
One of the most common misconceptions about religious belief is that it requires a belief in God or a supreme being. But such a feature would be too narrow because it would exclude polytheistic religions that do not recognize a supreme being.
Since when did polytheistic religions not believe in supreme beings? Are you completely unable to distinguish polytheism from atheism?
Now the major misstep:
Although the idea of materialism has been around since at least the ancient Greeks, it has only recently been considered to be a non-religious idea. This is rather odd considering that it explicitly claims that matter (or some other physical entity) is unconditionally, nondependently real and draws conclusions about nature and humanity based on that belief.
You have completely failed to explain how this makes "materialism" a "religious belief," and not just an observation about the Universe we perceive. Or are you going to expand your definition of "religious belief" to include any observation, prediction or opinion about events in the material Universe?
If you're trying to flog that old "science is another religion" horse back to life, you'll have to do a much better job than this.
Mike
Boonton - you need to distinguish between temporal and phenomenological causes. Particles interacting through forces affect each others motion through time, and we can propagate a system through time forever, but that isn't the same as saying that the forces exist.
Could you explain this in a bit more detail, I feel I lost you.
wrf3
Instead of trying to define "religious belief" so that it includes atheism, and its handmaid, naturalism; wouldn't it be better to redefine the discussion to one of worldview? Is it possible for government to operate without a worldview?
History appears to come down cleanly on the side of secularism as a 'worldview' for gov't. As for defining what a worldview is, doesn't it seem odd that we again ignore this hidden assumption that language is divine? That if we just come up with the right combination of words that alone alters reality?
Boonton writes: History appears to come down cleanly on the side of secularism as a 'worldview' for gov't.
That may be (assuming that we even agree on what "secularism as a worldview" entails). But the U.S. Declaration of Independence is grounded in theism.
As for defining what a worldview is, doesn't it seem odd that we again ignore this hidden assumption that language is divine?
I wasn't aware that I was doing that. Furthermore, there are a lot of people who assert that language isn't divine (AI researchers, for example).
That if we just come up with the right combination of words that alone alters reality?
I don't subscribe to "magical thinking".
Another problem I have with your/Clouser's definition of "religious belief" is that different beliefs covered by this definition function very differently from each other, so much so that I question the wisdom of including them all under one label. Taoism, for example, does not postulate any deity or afterlife, nor does it explicitly deny them; nor does it prescribe any concept of absolute moral right or wrong. Perhaps it should be thought of as a philosophy of life, with lots of vague, general observations about how people and the Universe operate; but I, for one, can't justly categorize it as a "religion" of the same sort as Christianity, Islam or Paganism.
If a particular "religion" is actually non-theistic or atheistic, perhaps you should take a closer look at what it entails, and not be so hasty to adopt a definition of "religion" that includes it.
Clouser's definition of religious belief -- or perhaps your summation of it here -- omits several features I've seen in religions, for example the demand that we believe in certain non-material things that can't be proven (or disproven) by objective evidence -- spirit, deities, afterlife, absolute right and wrong, non-material creatures such as angels, demons, etc. Not all beliefs make such demands of faith, and those that do, do so with differing degrees of urgency.
It's not enough to say "If it quacks like a duck..." when different species of duck have distinctly different quacks.
Raging
Another problem I have with your/Clouser's definition of "religious belief" is that different beliefs covered by this definition function very differently from each other, so much so that I question the wisdom of including them all under one label. Taoism, for example, does not postulate any deity or afterlife, nor does it explicitly deny them; nor does it prescribe any concept of absolute moral right or wrong.
True but this would be like saying a pine tree is different from a weeping willow. Both Christianity and Taoism are religious beliefs. They are just different types of religious beliefs.
Clouser's definition of religious belief -- or perhaps your summation of it here -- omits several features I've seen in religions, for example the demand that we believe in certain non-material things that can't be proven (or disproven) by objective evidence -- spirit, deities, afterlife, absolute right and wrong, non-material creatures such as angels, demons, etc. Not all beliefs make such demands of faith, and those that do, do so with differing degrees of urgency.
The problem with making the definition of religion "belief in something that can't be proven" is that many things we consider religious beliefs can indeed be proven or disproven. For example, if you wake up to something after you die then you've proven the afterlife exists. Yes it is too bad you can't send an email to those who haven't died yet but the assertion will in face be proven (or disproven). Likewise there's other things that religions assert that either happened or didn't (the resurrection, parting of the Red Sea etc.). Granted some religions do have beliefs that may be impossible to prove but since they are mixed with beliefs that are we can't use that as a definition.
wtf
That may be (assuming that we even agree on what "secularism as a worldview" entails). But the U.S. Declaration of Independence is grounded in theism.
A very secular theism. Leaving aside the dating convention of "in the year of our Lord" the only reference you have is "endowed by their Creator". The nature of the Creator is left blank so supposedly a materialist could go along with the document just as well as a theist. Regardless, the document says nothing about the Creator, how one should approach him or what he wants.
For example, if you wake up to something after you die then you've proven the afterlife exists.
At which point the afterlife would be -- for those who have this proof -- no longer a "religious" question, but a verifiable fact, just like the roundness of the Earth.
Likewise there's other things that religions assert that either happened or didn't (the resurrection, parting of the Red Sea etc.).
And as long those events remain unprovable, and un-disprovable, we are all free to believe them or not as we choose -- which is a characteristic of nearly all of what tend to be labelled "religious beliefs." If any of those events were objectively and indisputably proven to have happened, or not happened, then those who accept the proof would be "accepting a proven fact," not holding a "religious belief."
True but this would be like saying a pine tree is different from a weeping willow.
Um...yes, the two are rather noticeably different. Have you ever looked at them?
Boonton:
True but this would be like saying a pine tree is different from a weeping willow.
Raging:
Um...yes, the two are rather noticeably different. Have you ever looked at them?
It would appear, RB, that you have missed Boonton's point, which is rather simple: it is misguided to say that Taoism is not a religion because of its dissimilarity from Christianity (or other obvious religions) just as it would be misguided to say that a pine and a willow are not both trees because of their similarities. It is precisely their commonalities (however small) that bind them in that categorization. (By the way, I don't necessarily endorse this argument with Taoism, which is a very unique school of thought, in my opinion.)
For the point, I think it may be true that defining precisely what constitutes a religious belief may be difficult (an analogue might be the demarcation problem for science), but that doesn't mean that something like materialism falls into it. I sympathize with attempts to do so, but honestly, that just seems like a rather silly way to exploit the fact that "religious" is often a pejorative term these days. My belief X is religious? That's fine; it doesn't bother me because its religiosity (or irreligiosity) does not entail its falsity, which is really what I'm concerned with in the long run.
Interesting, but what if you believe nothing is nondependent? Certainly a scientifically astute materialist today would admit that the matter we get to play with here on earth depended on being forged in a star that went nova long before our sun formed. Certainly he would admit that matter depended on the accumulation of particles that resulted from the Big Bang. Before that the situation gets very fuzzy but lack of knowledge does not mean lack of existence. Suppose one believes the Big Bang was caused by some other event, evidence of what it was was destroyed by the Bang itself as far as we can tell, which was therefore caused by some other event and so on.
Clouser is fairly thorough on this point. Yes, an observation of material my certainly be non-dependent. But if a transcendency is assigned, then it becomes "divine". To appeal to the components (particular material items) instead of the assigned valuation (assumed transcendency) is to miss the point completely. It is also not a statement of causality. That is a different discussion.
Would you then say that this type of person is holding 'cause and effect' to be divine?
If so it would seem that one would have to jump through many hoops not to have some type of religious belief. You either end up believing in some 'uncaused cause' (aka God) or you believe 'cause and effect' is nondependent.
Clouser does allow non-dependence.
Here I suspect lies a problem with your use of language. If its impossible to have a non-religious belief then it's odd to think its possible to have a religious belief. Everything you believe either reduces to 'cause and effect' or to 'uncaused cause', in essense we could take it a step more and say everything is 'nondependence'. It's just that some peole we call 'non-religious' just happen to have a different flavor of nondependence than, say, Scientologists, Mormons, or Catholics.
Your reductionist argument really doesn't address the issue.
But what have you done!? Remember your mission was to create a definition that was neither too broad nor too tight!
In order to define the term in such a way that it is neither too broad nor too narrow, we must list all of the features that are true of all religious beliefs and true only of religious beliefs.*
But it seems you've stumbled upont a definition that makes not only all beliefs religious but even non-beliefs religious too!
The only thing that is made "religious" is those which have a dependency on a transcendent value. Marx, for instance, states that Matter is all there is. That statement borders between the two deity and non-deity depending on whether positions built beneath this point treat it as such. But Marx also placed his dialectical materialism alongside Matter, and that transcendent priniple reaches the qualifications for "divine", thus forming a "religious" belief system.
Yes, an observation of material my certainly be non-dependent. But if a transcendency is assigned, then it becomes "divine".
Who has assigned transcendency to the material Universe?
But Marx also placed his dialectical materialism alongside Matter, and that transcendent prin[c]iple reaches the qualifications for "divine", thus forming a "religious" belief system.
Please define your terms. In what way, exactly, has Marx "placed his dialectical materialism alongside Matter?" It sounds like your argument here is built entirely on abstractions, and has no connection to the real world.
Boonton:
[wrf3] That may be (assuming that we even agree on what "secularism as a worldview" entails). But the U.S. Declaration of Independence is grounded in theism.
A very secular theism.
What does that mean? Is that like "a little bit pregnant"? Does it mean that for government to adopt a theistic worldview is not an establishment of religion? Does it mean that theism is to be preferred over atheism?
Leaving aside the dating convention of "in the year of our Lord" the only reference you have is "endowed by their Creator". The nature of the Creator is left blank so supposedly a materialist could go along with the document just as well as a theist.
Oh, really? Tell us how. How are rights endowed by a materialist creator? And who, or what, is this materialist creator that gives these rights to all men?
Regardless, the document says nothing about the Creator, how one should approach him or what he wants.
Of course it does. It says that the Creator wants us to have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And if that's so, it means that the Creator values those things over death, tyranny, and misery. It implies that the Creator is personal - unless you can explain how these values arise from impersonality. It says that the Creator exists which, IMO, excludes atheism as a basis for our governance. It implies that human acknowledgment of the creator cannot be restricted from the public square. It actually says a lot of things that, IMO, materialism cannot support and atheists tend to ignore.
Oh, really? Tell us how. How are rights endowed by a materialist creator? And who, or what, is this materialist creator that gives these rights to all men?
The Founders simply claimed that, whoever created us, by whatever means or agency we were created, we have inalienable rights that no human authority can take away. An atheist can support this just as easily as a theist.
It says that the Creator exists which, IMO, excludes atheism as a basis for our governance.
That's a non-sequitur. The mere reference to a generic "Creator" does not change the fact that the "basis for our governance" is not to be found in atheism or any religion; the "basis for our governance" is the just consent of the governed (including the atheists), no more, no less.
Boonton writes:
I wonder what Joe would say to the charge that he is really an idolater of language. Subconsciously does he really hold language to be divine above all else? I think this is a failing many bloggers and writers hold for obvious reasons. Maybe not a failing but perhaps an assumption they don't even realize they hold but we should explore the possibility no?
Greetings, again, after a long time away for me. I often have found your comments incisive even if I disagree with them.
Joe would have his own response, but it might include the concession that language IS, in a true sense, divine, because it is shared by men and God, who made us in His image, who is The Word [John 1:1]. This echoes the 'creative word' of Genesis 1.
So Joe is not 'an idolater of language' at all, but one who sees that the mysteries and problems of language are as useful as those of mathematics in expressing our religious and this-world understanding fully. Both express truths about the real world God also 'inhabits' [imminence].
It is significant that some religions, unlike revealed Christianity, are inherently confused about language- such as Zen Buddhism, which denies the value of logic and language, both being part of 'existence', but uses language voluminously to express its truths nonetheless.
Your comment is like the trivial objection to 'Bible-believers', that they idolize their Bible, not the God who they believe authored it..
RB,
Joe's post boils down to a summary of the first 3 chapters of Clouser's book. All of your (and B's) questions will be answered there.
Collin
Raging Bee:
[wrf3] Oh, really? Tell us how. How are rights endowed by a materialist creator? And who, or what, is this materialist creator that gives these rights to all men?
The Founders simply claimed that, whoever created us, by whatever means or agency we were created, we have inalienable rights that no human authority can take away. An atheist can support this just as easily as a theist.
That's moving the goalpost. What Creator that grants rights is compatible with atheism?
It says that the Creator exists which, IMO, excludes atheism as a basis for our governance.
That's a non-sequitur.
Please provide the reasoning behind this claim.
The mere reference to a generic "Creator" does not change the fact that the "basis for our governance" is not to be found in atheism or any religion; the "basis for our governance" is the just consent of the governed (including the atheists), no more, no less.
But there is more. Our rights are not based in contract law ("the just consent of the governed") between man and government. Hence the 2nd Amendment, which provides a means by which the government may be justly overthrown if it ever strays from its charter to protect our inalienable rights.
Raging Bee writes: 'The Founders simply claimed that, whoever created us, by whatever means or agency we were created, we have inalienable rights that no human authority can take away. An atheist can support this just as easily as a theist'.
I am an Australian and we also have a written constitution - from 1901.
If we are to do good exegesis contextually -a rational concept, wouldn't you agree? - whether in 1783 or 1901 our Founders were consciously reflecting their peoples' views, [they spoke for them, didn't they?] and the vast majority held to fairly orthodox Christian concepts such as personality of their Deity, as Boonton observes.
They would have denied that atheists can derive good morals, for instance, from themselves.
This is the subtext of all their pronouncements. It is only creative revisionists who try to make them mean anything else -such as those who have misinterpreted your 'separation clause'- to distort its intent badly. Fortunately, when we came to write ours we learnt from you, and have not been saddled with your extreme misinterpretations in our polity.
Raging Bee writes: 'The Founders simply claimed that, whoever created us, by whatever means or agency we were created, we have inalienable rights that no human authority can take away. An atheist can support this just as easily as a theist'.
I am an Australian and we also have a written constitution - from 1901.
If we are to do good exegesis contextually -a rational concept, wouldn't you agree? - whether in 1783 or 1901 our Founders were consciously reflecting their peoples' views, [they spoke for them, didn't they?] and the vast majority held to fairly orthodox Christian concepts such as personality of their Deity, as Boonton observes. They would have denied that atheists can derive good morals, for instance, from themselves.
This is the subtext of all their pronouncements. It is only
creative revisionists who try to make them mean anything else -such as those who have misinterpreted your 'separation clause'- to distort its intent badly. Fortunately when we came to write ours, we learnt from you and have not been saddled with your extreme misinterpretations in our polity.
But there is more. Our rights are not based in contract law ("the just consent of the governed") between man and government.
Yes, they most certainly are: after rejecting "divine right" as a legitimate basis for government, the Founders went on to explicitly state that government derives its powers ONLY from the just consent of the governed.
Hence the 2nd Amendment, which provides a means by which the government may be justly overthrown if it ever strays from its charter to protect our inalienable rights.
The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing of the sort, and if you actually read the Constitution, you'd know it. The only LAWFUL means of overthrowing the government is by amending the Constitution. There is no legal right to overthrow the government by undemocratic, violent means.
...our Founders...would have denied that atheists can derive good morals, for instance, from themselves.
Please provide a specific, non-made-up, quote from any of the Founders, in which they actually make such a denial.
This is the subtext of all their pronouncements.
Oh, I see -- you can't provide any explicit quotations or writings to back up your bigoted opinions about atheists, so you try to pretend that the message you can't prove was actually a "subtext" of "all their pronouncements" that only you can discern. Riiight...
Actually, Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, wrote in a letter to Peter Carr that atheists could be just as moral as theists:
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. . . . Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you."
Besides that, the Constitution is our governing document, not the Declaration. The body of the Constitution makes no mention of God or religion except to forbid any religious test for officeholders.
Besides that, why are we Americans so obsessed with the founders' personal views? We certainly wouldn't agree with their views on race, slavery and women, would we?
Religion is a horrible guide to morality as religions differ tremendously as to what is moral and are willing to kill each other over it. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens: "Is there anything a god could command which is so hideous that you would refuse to do it?" Theism provides the ultimate subjective morality as it is subject to its god's whims. If that god gives the okay on torture, rape, murder, genocide, baby-killing, then it's perfectly moral.
The only sure and objective guide to morality is reason.
ex-preacher writes: The only sure and objective guide to morality is reason.
This is one of those incredibly fatuous slogans that atheists use as an opiate for their conscience.
"Reason" is simply logical operations on data. It's no different from arithmetic on numbers. What's important isn't the data manipulation - which a computer could do - but the data being used. And there the atheist loses the way. The only data that they have is their own personal preference. What they then neglect is the basis for comparing two competing systems of morality.
If they would actually use the logic and reason that they claim to treasure, the atheist would have to admit that "might makes right." But this puts them in a catch-22, because as soon as they admit this, they admit the moral basis for their own destruction. (BTW, for the theist, it is the case that "might enforces right" which, not coincidentally, is in the Declaration of Independence).
The proof of this is trivial.
1) Good and evil are distance measurements between "is" and "ought". "Good" denotes less distance between "is" and "ought", while "evil" indicates a greater distance.
2) "Ought" exists solely in the realm of the imagination, which means that it is a) personal and b) subjective.
3) In order to settle a dispute between two competing moral claims, it is necessary to silence the "ought" of one of the parties. For humans, this can certainly be accomplished by force.
4) Therefore, since all men are mortal, for the atheist it is clear that "might makes right".
5) For the theist, God is not right because He is omnipotent -- He is right because He is eternal and cannot be silenced.
Clear, simple, logical.
ex-preacher wrote: Religion is a horrible guide to morality as religions differ tremendously as to what is moral and are willing to kill each other over it. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens: "Is there anything a god could command which is so hideous that you would refuse to do it?" Theism provides the ultimate subjective morality as it is subject to its god's whims. If that god gives the okay on torture, rape, murder, genocide, baby-killing, then it's perfectly moral.
Why yes, yes it is. Do a little thought experiment. On what basis can you gainsay God? What makes you more moral than Him?
I would rather deal with a man who is honestly trying to follow his god, even if I think him mistaken, than someone who thinks they know better than God.
This is one of those incredibly fatuous slogans that atheists use as an opiate for their conscience.
This is one of those incredibly ignorant talking-points that religious bigots use to justify their blind, ignorant hatred of people not like themselves, and their refusal to question their own preconceptions.
If you call yourself a Christian, wrf3, then I hasten to remind you that you are in violation of your own Commandment against "false witness." If you want to pretend that atheists have no morals, the first thing you have to do is behave more morally than the atheists. Your failure to do so disproves your entire case and flushes your credibility down the toilet.
Raging Bee wrote: Yes, they most certainly are: after rejecting "divine right" as a legitimate basis for government, the Founders went on to explicitly state that government derives its powers ONLY from the just consent of the governed.
You are confusing the power to enforce with what to enforce. The government has no right to derive someone of an inalienable right.
[wrf3] Hence the 2nd Amendment, which provides a means by which the government may be justly overthrown if it ever strays from its charter to protect our inalienable rights.
The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing of the sort, and if you actually read the Constitution, you'd know it. The only LAWFUL means of overthrowing the government is by amending the Constitution. There is no legal right to overthrow the government by undemocratic, violent means.
The founders were well aware of the tyranny that government could become. After all, they had just overthrown one. And they knew that the people should have the means to do it again, one day, if it ever became necessary.
Raging Bee:
[wrf3] This is one of those incredibly fatuous slogans that atheists use as an opiate for their conscience.
This is one of those incredibly ignorant talking-points that religious bigots use to justify their blind, ignorant hatred of people not like themselves, and their refusal to question their own preconceptions.
Pot, kettle, black. First, it isn't ignorant. That's why I gave a proof of my position. I'd love for you to show what is wrong with it. Second, deal with your own preconceptions. Here's one: I don't hate you. I disagree with you, I think you lead what is known as "the unexamined life", and I think your reading comprehension skills are almost non-existent, but I don't hate you.
If you call yourself a Christian, wrf3, then I hasten to remind you that you are in violation of your own Commandment against "false witness."
Claiming and proving are two different things. Watch.
If you want to pretend that atheists have no morals,
Now just where did I do that? Oh, wait. I didn't. How is it that you are able to make the illogical leap from my saying that there is no basis for morality, other than personal preference, to "atheists have no morals"? Everyone has morals.
the first thing you have to do is behave more morally than the atheists.
And who gets to decide when we disagree? You? What makes your personal preference any better than anyone else's?
I disagree with the assertion that ought exists only in the imagination. There are various means to arrive at ought, most of which - whether religious or purely philosophical - end up at some variant of the Golden Rule. Using reason and experience, philosophers and teachers from an amazingly wide spectrum of cultures and before the time of Jsus arrived at the same conclusion that we ought treat others as we ourselves would wish to be treated. Ironically, doing good for others is the surest way to insure that others do good to us and those close to us.
It is true that might must sometimes be used against persons or governments that consistently violate the Golden Rule. This does not mean that might makes right, bu rather that right must sometimes use might.
It is at least refreshing (though almost sickening) to hear a theist admit that their god could command them to torture or murder babies and they would find it moral.
ex-preacher writes: I disagree with the assertion that ought exists only in the imagination. There are various means to arrive at ought, most of which - whether religious or purely philosophical - end up at some variant of the Golden Rule.
There are several responses to this. First, most of those chains of thought sneak in circular reasoning. Typically by claiming something is "better" -- which they can't do without warrant. Second, there are other systems which are arrived at via various means which conclude just the opposite: "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women!" Tell us, ex-preacher, should we love our enemies or hate them? Now prove it. Third, think outside the box. Were the aliens in Independence Day less capable philosophers than we are?
Using reason and experience, philosophers and teachers from an amazingly wide spectrum of cultures and before the time of Jsus arrived at the same conclusion that we ought treat others as we ourselves would wish to be treated. Ironically, doing good for others is the surest way to insure that others do good to us and those close to us.
See? You did it yourself. You slipped "good" into the discussion without ever defining what "good" is.
It is true that might must sometimes be used against persons or governments that consistently violate the Golden Rule. This does not mean that might makes right, bu rather that right must sometimes use might.
What is "right"? Pick any contentious topic: abortion, marriage of homosexuals, waterboarding, you name it. Show that one side is right and the other is wrong.
It is at least refreshing (though almost sickening) to hear a theist admit that their god could command them to torture or murder babies and they would find it moral.
Like I said, on what basis do you gainsay God? People who think they can rightly judge God are deluded.
Good is quite easy to define. Have you ever read Aristotle? Eating a delicious and nutricious meal is good. Eating poop is not good. Lying down to sleep in a soft, warm bed is good. Rubbing sandpaper on your eye is not good. Leukemia is also bad. There are occasions when we endure a short-term bad (a needle in the arm) to achieve a long-term good (immunity from a disease).
For a good example of how people from all sorts of religions and philosophies can come together using reason to determine what is good, I suggest you read the Universal Declaration of Rights. It is a document of such shining moral integrity that it shows the Bible's slave-loving god for the primitive, blood-thirsty, selfish creature that it is.
"The proof of this is trivial.
1) Good and evil are distance measurements between "is" and "ought". "Good" denotes less distance between "is" and "ought", while "evil" indicates a greater distance.
2) "Ought" exists solely in the realm of the imagination, which means that it is a) personal and b) subjective.
3) In order to settle a dispute between two competing moral claims, it is necessary to silence the "ought" of one of the parties. For humans, this can certainly be accomplished by force.
4) Therefore, since all men are mortal, for the atheist it is clear that "might makes right".
5) For the theist, God is not right because He is omnipotent -- He is right because He is eternal and cannot be silenced."
great...so now all is left for you to do is number 6...demonstrate that you know what God considers as "ough" without using as reference any means of knowledge constructed by the hand of men.
"What is "right"? Pick any contentious topic: abortion, marriage of homosexuals, waterboarding, you name it. Show that one side is right and the other is wrong."
as yourself how you would feel if any of those were done to you...how would you feel if you knew you were to be aborted? how would you feel if someone told you you could not marry the woman you love?...how would you feel if you knew you were going to be waterboarded...the answer to each question should tell you quite convincingly (assuming you answer them honnestly) what is right and what is wrong.
"This is the subtext of all their pronouncements. It is only
creative revisionists who try to make them mean anything else -such as those who have misinterpreted your 'separation clause'- to distort its intent badly. Fortunately when we came to write ours, we learnt from you and have not been saddled with your extreme misinterpretations in our polity."
so in essense australian constitution defacto persecutes anyone who is not a member of the state approved cult?
Eating a delicious and nutricious meal is good. Eating poop is not good. Lying down to sleep in a soft, warm bed is good. Rubbing sandpaper on your eye is not good. Leukemia is also bad. There are occasions when we endure a short-term bad (a needle in the arm) to achieve a long-term good (immunity from a disease).
ex, you are confusing healthy and unhealthy with good (moral) and bad (immoral). It may be unhealthy to eat poop, but why is it immoral?
For a good example of how people from all sorts of religions and philosophies can come together using reason to determine what is good, I suggest you read the Universal Declaration of Rights.
I've read it and I am not all that impressed. The source material is much better and more realistic. It always amuses me that adults with real life experience can look at human history and believe that human reason can be an arbiter of what is good and what is evil.
Ludwig writes:
[wrf3] "What is "right"? Pick any contentious topic: abortion, marriage of homosexuals, waterboarding, you name it. Show that one side is right and the other is wrong."
as[k] yourself how you would feel if any of those were done to you...
This is the point that atheists just cannot seem to understand. This happens over and over and over again. They are so used to assuming that they, and they alone, are the ultimate arbiters of morality, that they are somehow important, that they are blind to the fact that there is nothing in the universe to compel someone to care at all what another person thinks or feels. They think that "feeling good" is the same as "being good".
Your universe doesn't care about you at all. It imposes no obligation on anyone else to care about you. There is no fundamental reason for your opinion (and therefore your morality) to count for anything.
how would you feel if you knew you were to be aborted? how would you feel if someone told you you could not marry the woman you love?...how would you feel if you knew you were going to be waterboarded...the answer to each question should tell you quite convincingly (assuming you answer them honnestly) what is right and what is wrong.
People do answer these honestly -- and come to different conclusions than you do. Nevertheless, this avoids the real issue: when deciding between competing moralities, why should anyone care what you think? You're a cosmic accident with no inherent worth; what rational reason can you possibly give that makes your particular opinion worthwhile?
Therefore, since all men are mortal, for the atheist it is clear that "might makes right".
This is observably false: I have never heard an atheist assert that "might makes right." They calculate right and wrong the same way theists do: by observing the objective and verifiable consequences of actions. Also, I have never heard an atheist base such calculations on which party was in power at a given moment.
Your "proof" is observably false, on the same level as "The sky is blue, the Earth is round, the Holocaust really happened, and atheists are just as capable of morality as theists." You can do all the logical back-flips you want, but if your conclusion contradicts observable reality, it's crap.
And who gets to decide when we disagree? You? What makes your personal preference any better than anyone else's?
First you claim that morality has to come from a God; then, when I point out that your actions are contrary to the written word of your God, you suddenly revert to subjectivism like a grade-school kid who has just lost a factual argument. So now you're doing exactly what you accuse the atheists of doing: pretending there's no higher objective law to which you are answerable. Yet another hypocritical phony Christian making Christianity look like the Stoopidest Religion on Earth.
...Second, there are other systems which are arrived at via various means which conclude just the opposite: "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women!"
I hate to break this to you, but that "example" comes from a fantasy movie. (Besides, even Conan the Barbarian followed and respected the Golden Rule, which makes your "example" even more ridiculous.) It does absolutely nothing to refute ex-preacher's point, which is nothing but a common-sense observation of human social behavior in the REAL world.
Third, think outside the box. Were the aliens in Independence Day less capable philosophers than we are?
Another "example" from another fantasy movie. You really need to get out more.
Like I said, on what basis do you gainsay God? People who think they can rightly judge God are deluded.
First, we're not gainsaying God, we're gainsaying your idiotic imagining of God. There's a difference -- you're not God, remember? And second, people judge God all the time, intentionally or not. Even the decision not to judge is a form of judgement.
ex, you are confusing healthy and unhealthy with good (moral) and bad (immoral). It may be unhealthy to eat poop, but why is it immoral?
There's no confusion, except in your mind, ucfengr: actions which have beneficial (including healthy) consequences are "good;" actions that have harmful (including unhealthy) consequences are "bad." If you choose to eat dung yourself, that's your problem. Forcing someone else to eat it is indeed immoral precisely because it is unhealthy (and because you're infringing on someone else's freedom without good cause). If you can't understand this simple and obvious means of calculating good and evil, you're really in no position to lecture anyone else about morality. (Which isn't at all surprising, given that you had, in a previous thread, used a religious text to justify slavery, then asserted that atheists have no morals.)
It always amuses me that adults with real life experience can look at human history and believe that human reason can be an arbiter of what is good and what is evil.
It always amuses me that adults without real life experience can so easily ridicule that which they clearly don't understand, and ignore what is so painfully obvious to people who actually study history and politics.
Ludwig writes: great...so now all is left for you to do is number 6...demonstrate that you know what God considers as "ough[t]" without using as reference any means of knowledge constructed by the hand of men.
Give me an example of one single piece of knowledge that doesn't count as "constructed by the hand of men." I assume that by "hand", you really mean "mind", since knowledge is in the mind and not the hands.
This is the point that atheists just cannot seem to understand. This happens over and over and over again. They are so used to assuming that they, and they alone, are the ultimate arbiters of morality, that they are somehow important, that they are blind to the fact that there is nothing in the universe to compel someone to care at all what another person thinks or feels. They think that "feeling good" is the same as "being good".
This is nothing more than the ravings of a bigot who can't bring himself to think outside his own tiny, humid, stifling box. Anyone who actually knows any real atheists in the real world would instantly know that everything you say about atheists here is observably false.
(No, atheists do not think they're the "ultimate arbiters of morality;" like decent and sensible theists, they do their best to learn from others, and from history, and base their judgements on far more than their own preferences. This is how humans tend to function all over the world, theist and atheist alike, and your blind tirades only prove you know nothing of the real world.)
Furthermore, there are plenty of REAL Christians, who actually make efforts to live a Christ-like life, who are secure enough in their spirituality and accomplishments that they don't feel any need to tell transparently idiotic lies about atheists, Pagans, gays, Jews, or anyone else. Instead of pretending you know everyone better than we know ourselves, you should try shutting your mouth and opening your mind to the accumulated wisdom of your fellow religionists -- all two-thousand-odd years of it.
Think you can take it, wrf3?
Give me an example of one single piece of knowledge that doesn't count as "constructed by the hand of men."
Thank you, wrf3, for admitting Ludwig's (and the atheists') point. So now we're all agreed that theists and atheists alike get their knowledge and morality from other humans, right?
Oh, really? Tell us how. How are rights endowed by a materialist creator? And who, or what, is this materialist creator that gives these rights to all men?
I assume a materialst would respond these rights are a consquence of material forming a human beign.
It says that the Creator exists which, IMO, excludes atheism as a basis for our governance. It implies that human acknowledgment of the creator cannot be restricted from the public square. It actually says a lot of things that, IMO, materialism cannot support and atheists tend to ignore.
You've basically stumbled upon a secular gov't that uses a particular flavor of theism as its support. Since liberty is one of the rights given by this Creator to all humans then it follows that no acknowledgement of the creator can be forced on any human in the public square or not. While this behavior might be ungrateful on the part of the humans it goes hand in hand with the liberty granted.
I noticed the particular use of wording in your post, "cannot be restricted from the public square". This does not make a gov't theocratic. A secular gov't is perfectly capable of refraining from restricting religious freedom. In fact, a secular gov't has an advantage in that it hasn't hitched its hoarse to any particular flavor of theism so it need not be pressured to persecute those who are not a member of the favored flavor of theism.
But there is more. Our rights are not based in contract law ("the just consent of the governed") between man and government. Hence the 2nd Amendment, which provides a means by which the government may be justly overthrown if it ever strays from its charter to protect our inalienable rights.
I still fail to see how that makes the gov't theocratic.
"Reason" is simply logical operations on data. It's no different from arithmetic on numbers. What's important isn't the data manipulation - which a computer could do - but the data being used. And there the atheist loses the way. The only data that they have is their own personal preference. What they then neglect is the basis for comparing two competing systems of morality.
On the contrary, personal preference is very difficult to observe and apply 'reason' too. Quick, tell me by what % do you enjoy van. ice cream more than strawberry? But actual data you can observe is quite immune to personal preference. We'd all love ice cream to be the cure to diabetes yet even atheists who are diabetic know they must refrain from it.
If they would actually use the logic and reason that they claim to treasure, the atheist would have to admit that "might makes right."
Ironically that's the conclusion many theists also draw towards, except they assume something else has the most might.
Barrie
So Joe is not 'an idolater of language' at all, but one who sees that the mysteries and problems of language are as useful as those of mathematics in expressing our religious and this-world understanding fully. Both express truths about the real world God also 'inhabits' [imminence].
Ahh but just because God uses language doesn't make language itself divine anymore than the fact that humans use toilets makes toilets human. What's interesting is not that language can express truths about the real world but that language can express untruths just as well. In other words, language can seem to exist somewhat independent of 'the real world'. That would seem to make it fit the definition of divine presented but I'm wondering if that should be considered important or trivial? After all, the Star Trek 'history timelines' exist indpendent of actual history as it is being played out but that hardly merits calling it divine. Most people would say not having any hard connection to the real world is a minus, not a plus!
It is significant that some religions, unlike revealed Christianity, are inherently confused about language- such as Zen Buddhism, which denies the value of logic and language, both being part of 'existence', but uses language voluminously to express its truths nonetheless.
I won't deny that there's pleny of volumns of books on Zen Buddhism but it does express a distrust of lanugage as a perfect conveyor of truth and many of its exercises involve not using language. There's other traditions in the major religions that also emphasize direct experience, action, etc. over the use of language.
I admit I'm skeptical of language because we all here have a built in bias towards it. We all are here because even though we are very different in our opinions we all share a common enjoyment of reading articles about obtuse and abstract subjects and then writing about them and at each other. The people who are not as enamored of constantly churning out posts are not here to add their input to this discussion because they are off doing something productive!!!!
So off the bat this post begins with an implicit assumption that when we use the word 'religion' we are using something very powerful and we must derive the right definition of it and then see how that applies to our pet causes (such as trying to annoy the atheists by calling materialism a religion). Perhaps if one of those langugage skeptics were here he would tell us that we are wasting our time just playing word games. Religion can mean whatever you want it to mean just like a marketing company is free to try to reinvent 'bad' to mean good or 'phat' to mean cool and so on. 'Discovering' that materialists are members of their own type of religion accomplishes nothing.
See wrf3 when he says See? You did it yourself. You slipped "good" into the discussion without ever defining what "good" is.
Notice the implicit assumption here seems to be you don't really know good unless you have a good definition of it. What if it its the other way around. What if good exists and the definition of good in language is more like a painting or picture of a person. It may capture a little or a lot of its subject but will never be exactly the same thing?
Raging Bee:
[wrf3] Give me an example of one single piece of knowledge that doesn't count as "constructed by the hand of men."
Thank you, wrf3, for admitting Ludwig's (and the atheists') point.
What, that Ludwig asked a question that even he can't answer?
So now we're all agreed that theists and atheists alike get their knowledge and morality from other humans, right?
Wrong. There is a God, who exists independently from man, who is not silent.
Boonton wrote:
See wrf3 [post 37] when he says "See? You did it yourself. You slipped 'good' into the discussion without ever defining what 'good' is."
Notice the implicit assumption here seems to be you don't really know good unless you have a good definition of it.
You can't reason about it unless you have a definition of it. You can't communicate with any meaning unless both parties agree on the definition; otherwise, they end up talking right past each other.
What if it its the other way around. What if good exists and the definition of good in language is more like a painting or picture of a person. It may capture a little or a lot of its subject but will never be exactly the same thing?
If good exists, how do you know what it is? We know what people are, which is why we can say that a painting or a picture may (or may not) be an accurate representation.
Squishy definitions lead to squishy philosophy. You may think that good. I don't.
More later tonight...
There's no confusion, except in your mind, ucfengr: actions which have beneficial (including healthy) consequences are "good;" actions that have harmful (including unhealthy) consequences are "bad."
If my reasoning was as weak as your's, I guess I'd have to go right for the personal attack as well. All actions have both beneficial and harmful consequences, so this is a silly basis for determining good and bad or moral and immoral. Just because something is a bad idea, it doesn't mean it is "bad".
Forcing someone else to eat it is indeed immoral precisely because it is unhealthy (and because you're infringing on someone else's freedom without good cause).
This is what's called "moving the goalpost". In your initial post, you didn't say anything about forcing anybody to do anything, you merely stated that eating a healthy meal is "good" and eating poop is "bad", but you really have no basis for determining why one is good or one is bad other than one is considered unhealthy.
Which isn't at all surprising, given that you had, in a previous thread, used a religious text to justify slavery, then asserted that atheists have no morals.
And, not surprisingly, my arguments were stronger than yours then, as well.
It always amuses me that adults without real life experience can so easily ridicule that which they clearly don't understand, and ignore what is so painfully obvious to people who actually study history and politics.
You make it sound like the UDHR is quantum physics or Calculus, it ain't. It's a pretty simple document, but it's rather like the Kellogg-Briand Pact, one of those things that sounds really good on paper, but ignores human nature and history.
All actions have both beneficial and harmful consequences, so this is a silly basis for determining good and bad or moral and immoral.
Excuse me while I belabor the obvious: we weigh the beneficial consequences against the harmful ones, and determine which are greater. Yes, it's complex; yes, it requires us to take responsibility and do actual work. Grow up and deal with it, like the rest of us do in the real world every day.
There is a God, who exists independently from man, who is not silent.
Okay, which man-made document(s) represent the true nature and intent of this God? And by what objective means can you prove the superior validity of said document(s) over all the others?
I don't think there's a perfectly crisp line between religious and non-religious beliefs. The boundary is a bit fuzzy, but I do think that the issue of faith is critical to making this distinction.
I would say that all religious beliefs are "faith-friendly" and all non-religious beliefs are "faith-unfriendly". We all ultimately rely on faith, at least in a trivial sense, but for religious beliefs that faith is encouraged and central, while for non-religious beliefs, that faith is actively minimized and only grudgingly accepted when there seems to be no other option (as in a scientist's faith that reality can be tested by experiments).
Any so-called religion that is not faith-friendly, I would argue, is not actually a religion but a philosophy (some lineages of Buddhism, for example). The problem is that our word "religion" is a Western concept that predates our knowledge of the Eastern schools of thought. The term is hopelessly muddled when we try to stretch it to include Eastern philosophies. It's a fuzzy boundary, though. I'm not saying that no Eastern religion deserves this designation, though.
Of course, not all faith-friendly belief systems are overtly religious. In my view, many new-age beliefs, for example, are based on faith (or intuition). This, I think, is the fuzzy boundary between religious and non-religious beliefs.
In addition to the faith-friendliness, the subject matter is important as well. Religious beliefs (and no other kind of belief) are essentially:
1. Faith-friendly
2. Concerning a transcendent reality
Excuse me while I belabor the obvious: we weigh the beneficial consequences against the harmful ones, and determine which are greater.
The problem is that you and I weigh things differently. For example, a smoker puts more weight on the pleasure he derives from smoking than he does on the health risks smoking entails; or pro-lifers put more weight on the life of the unborn child, while pro-choicers put more weight on the right of the mother to not have to carry a child to term. Also, I think humans do a pretty poor job of weighing the long-term consequences of actions. If we did, teen pregnancy would not be much of a problem.
Now, in a perfectly free society, this would not be much of a problem, but here, in the real world, their are groups of people from all sides of the political and religious (and non-religious) spectrum that want to force their "backward" (or "enlightened") weights on the backs of the unwilling.
"There is a God, who exists independently from man, who is not silent."
I actually do believe that there is...but it seems quite obvious that IT does not say the same things to me that IT says to you.
"[wrf3] Give me an example of one single piece of knowledge that doesn't count as "constructed by the hand of men."
Well you seem to imply that you have a special insight into what God's opinion is on various issues...i was just curious as to which repository of knowledge you used to learn what those opinions are and how you can determine and demonstrate that they are not in fact the mere result of man's imaginings.
Ludwig writes: I actually do believe that there is [a God which exists independently of man]...but it seems quite obvious that IT does not say the same things to me that IT says to you.
Like what?
Well you seem to imply that you have a special insight into what God's opinion is on various issues...
So? You claimed the same for yourself in post 56.
i was just curious as to which repository of knowledge you used to learn what those opinions are and how you can determine and demonstrate that they are not in fact the mere result of man's imaginings.
That's either a very deep question (philosophers aren't sure that anything is not the mere result of man's imaginings) or a very detailed one. I could write a book on why I think Christianity true. I don't think this forum is the place for a book length analysis. But delving into things like comparing what I think God says vs. what you think God says might be interesting.
Anyway, break's over, back tonight.
"Like what?"
well for instance, that the only "judging" that occurs is ours judgement about ourselves...God allready judged everything that IT considered "good" at the instant of creation...everything that IT considerd "not good" remains uncreated and therefore non existant to this day. Also,God is not good or evil or loving or hating or scared or blue of cold or rich or injured...God is beyond all that and does not pick and choose which parts of reality IT prefers.
"So? You claimed the same for yourself in post 56."
I did indeed...but all the while i entertain the very distinct possibility that i may be wrong...do you?
"That's either a very deep question (philosophers aren't sure that anything is not the mere result of man's imaginings) or a very detailed one. I could write a book on why I think Christianity true. I don't think this forum is the place for a book length analysis. But delving into things like comparing what I think God says vs. what you think God says might be interesting."
Well i gave you my exemple of it above...
wrf3
You can't reason about it unless you have a definition of it. You can't communicate with any meaning unless both parties agree on the definition; otherwise, they end up talking right past each other.
We can rewrite this to say "you can't use it in a crossword puzzle or scrabble game unless you can spell it". True true but that doesn't mean the inability to spell it means it doesn't exist. Again your assumption is everything that is real MUST be reducable to language. Is that a reasonable assumption to make or one that comes easily for people who like to read/write a lot?
Boonton:
[wrf3] You can't reason about it unless you have a definition of it. You can't communicate with any meaning unless both parties agree on the definition; otherwise, they end up talking right past each other.
We can rewrite this to say "you can't use it in a crossword puzzle or scrabble game unless you can spell it".
No, you can't. One can spell a word without knowing what it means.
True true but that doesn't mean the inability to spell it means it doesn't exist.
Non-sequitur. I never said anything remotely like this.
Again your assumption is everything that is real MUST be reducable to language.
That's not one of my assumptions at all. What I am saying is that if we can't agree on a definition then we can't talk meaningful about it. Is it your position that we can't define good and evil? We can't say what properties good and evil may, or may not, have? If so, then there's little talking about it.
Ludwig writes: well for instance, that the only "judging" that occurs is ours judgement about ourselves...
I don't follow you, here. Are you referring to good and evil being subjective personal judgments? If so, you have to ask yourself the question, "On what basis does God judge things to be good and evil?"
God allready judged everything that IT considered "good" at the instant of creation...everything that IT considerd "not good" remains uncreated and therefore non existant to this day.
Is there any difference between what God considers "good" and what we consider "good"?
Also,God is not good or evil or loving or hating or scared or blue of cold or rich or injured...God is beyond all that and does not pick and choose which parts of reality IT prefers.
Here I have to partially disagree. God is good, He is self-existent, He is love...
Where does your statement about what you think God is like come from? That is, what is your warrant for saying that "God is not good or evil or loving..."?
[wrf3] "So? You claimed the same for yourself in post 56."
I did indeed...but all the while i entertain the very distinct possibility that i may be wrong...do you?
Of course. As St. Paul wrote, "the just shall live by faith." To which he adds, faith in the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. I trust Him; I don't trust myself.
Raging Bee, in post 44, wrote:
[wrf3] Therefore, since all men are mortal, for the atheist it is clear that "might makes right".
This is observably false: I have never heard an atheist assert that "might makes right."
First, it doesn't matter. What you claim is "observably false" is demonstrably true. If all morality is subjective (and all atheist philosophers claim that it is), then morality exists within individuals. Given two atheists who are utterly opposed to each other on a moral issue, it is easy to show that ending the personal preference of one ends the argument.
Second, most people, atheists included, are sufficiently confused on this issue to not have thought it through.
Third, it's clear that you haven't observed enough. There are a number of atheists who have claimed that "might makes right." Nietzsche for one. Mao for another.
Fourth, one way to easily refute my claim is to show what does make right. Pretend that you and I are locked in a room and that a moral issue absolutely must be decided. How will you accomplish this?
They calculate right and wrong the same way theists do: by observing the objective and verifiable consequences of actions. Also, I have never heard an atheist base such calculations on which party was in power at a given moment.
On what basis do they choose between competing moral assessments?
[wrf3] And who gets to decide when we disagree? You? What makes your personal preference any better than anyone else's?
First you claim that morality has to come from a God;
I've never made that claim.
then, when I point out that your actions are contrary to the written word of your God,
I'm not the one who bore false witness. You confuse what you imagine to be with what actually happened.
you suddenly revert to subjectivism like a grade-school kid who has just lost a factual argument.
Suddenly? Since the first time I wrote about morality (post 31), I've said that all morality is subjective.
So now you're doing exactly what you accuse the atheists of doing: pretending there's no higher objective law to which you are answerable.
I know what my higher law is and Who it comes from. Furthermore, I gave a reasoned argument as to why God's moral judgement has a privileged position: it is not from His omnipotence, but from His self-existence. He is right because He cannot be silenced.
What I'm asking you is to demonstrate what objective basis exists for deciding between competing moral systems. Instead of doing this, you resort to strawman arguments and ad hominem.
[wrf3] ...Second, there are other systems which are arrived at via various means which conclude just the opposite: "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women!"
I hate to break this to you, but that "example" comes from a fantasy movie.
I'm aware of where it came from. It's called a "thought experiment" -- useful for breaking out of preconceived notions and all that. You know, what you recommend we poor theists do. You ought to try it, yourself.
It does absolutely nothing to refute ex-preacher's point, which is nothing but a common-sense observation of human social behavior in the REAL world.
Most humans do what is convenient instead of right.
[wrf3] Third, think outside the box. Were the aliens in Independence Day less capable philosophers than we are?
Another "example" from another fantasy movie. You really need to get out more.
You need to actually answer the question. Were they morally right or morally wrong? When the humans defeated the aliens, did might make right, or did might enforce right? Why? C'mon -- these should be simple questions for you to answer.
[wrf3] Like I said, on what basis do you gainsay God? People who think they can rightly judge God are deluded.
First, we're not gainsaying God, we're gainsaying your idiotic imagining of God. There's a difference -- you're not God, remember? And second, people judge God all the time, intentionally or not. Even the decision not to judge is a form of judgement.
So answer the question: on what basis can anyone reasonably hope to judge God?
If all morality is subjective (and all atheist philosophers claim that it is)...
I have never met an atheist who made this claim. Once again, you are repeating a claim that has been repeatedly shown to be false. In other words, you're a liar.
There are a number of atheists who have claimed that "might makes right." Nietzsche for one. Mao for another.
That's two atheists out of...how many? Not exactly a representative sample, is it? I could show you PLENTY of examples of so-called Christians claiming that might makes right (after they gained control of the might, of course). Ever hear what some guy named Martin Luther had to say about Jews?
Pretend that you and I are locked in a room and that a moral issue absolutely must be decided. How will you accomplish this?
That depends on how receptive you are to ideas from someone not like yourself. You could choose to ignore everything I say, or you could choose to listen and reason with me. As a self-proclaimed Christian, which choice would you make?
What I'm asking you is to demonstrate what objective basis exists for deciding between competing moral systems.
I just answered that question: the basis is in an objective assessment of the verifiable consequences of the actions in question. You have consistently refused to acknowledge this concept, after reasonable persons of all faiths (and no faith) have shown their comprehension of it for thousands of years. Do try to keep up, won't you?
When the humans defeated the aliens, did might make right, or did might enforce right?
Might happened to end up enforcing right: we humans had a right to exist, and to be free, which the aliens had tried to deny. The other possible result would have been wrong -- something even the aliens would have admitted had they been on the receiving end of it.
I gave a reasoned argument as to why God's moral judgement has a privileged position: it is not from His omnipotence, but from His self-existence. He is right because He cannot be silenced.
In other words, you claim God's judgement is "privileged" because he's God and "cannot be silenced," then you claim that atheists assert that "might makes right." Then you make up a clearly ad-hoc distinction between "omnipotence" and "self-existence" to cover up your obvious hypocricy. Sorry, but it is clearly the theists, not the atheists, who base their "morality" on an all-powerful authority-figure who is expected to silence all dissenting voices.
You're a bigot, a false witness, and a hypocrite, and every post of yours proves it all the more clearly. Just give it up and stop trying to cover up what's been obvious from your first post. Do you really think you're fooling anyone?
Raging Bee:
[wrf3] If all morality is subjective (and all atheist philosophers claim that it is)...
I have never met an atheist who made this claim. Once again, you are repeating a claim that has been repeatedly shown to be false. In other words, you're a liar.
"We shall find beauty in the final laws of nature, [but] we will find no special status for life or intelligence. A fortiori, we will find no standards of value or morality". -- Steven Weinberg
In his essay entitled Nonmoral Nature, Stephen Gould uses naturalistic observation to argue against the universality of human morality. He examines the debate from all sides and concludes that such concepts cannot realistically apply to nature as it does to man. However, if one examines the works of Charles Darwin, the discrepancies between man and nature begin to disappear. This view suggests that morality is a purely social construct. Proof of such a hypothesis is prevalent in many sources, such as literature or recent history. Following this logic, one must conclude that concepts of good and evil are altogether arbitrary, subjective, and unnatural. http://projectparadox.f2o.org/thoughts/papers/good-versus-evil-the-great-debate.php
The existentialist, on the contrary, finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that “the good” exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky once wrote did God did not exist, everything would be permitted”; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself. -- Jean Paul Sarte
[wrf3] There are a number of atheists who have claimed that "might makes right." Nietzsche for one. Mao for another.
That's two atheists out of...how many? Not exactly a representative sample, is it?
All I needed was one counter-example to disprove your claim that what I said was "observably false".
Raging Bee wrote: In other words, you claim God's judgement is "privileged" because he's God and "cannot be silenced," then you claim that atheists assert that "might makes right."
That's correct. Different worldviews require the world to be seen differently.
Then you make up a clearly ad-hoc distinction between "omnipotence" and "self-existence" to cover up your obvious hypocricy.
Where's the hypocrisy? If a moral agent cannot be silenced, then that moral agent has a privileged position. In atheism, there is no God and humans can be silenced. Therefore, the privileged basis for morality in atheism is logically different than that for theism.
Sorry, but it is clearly the theists, not the atheists, who base their "morality" on an all-powerful authority-figure who is expected to silence all dissenting voices.
Just for a moment, suppose the theists are right. There is no moral basis for disagreeing with God. Therefore, dissenters are in the wrong. What do you expect God to do with them?
"I don't follow you, here. Are you referring to good and evil being subjective personal judgments? If so, you have to ask yourself the question, "On what basis does God judge things to be good and evil?"
Thats my point...i dont believe God "judges" ANYTHING...at least not in the sense the the bible implies IT does. God created everything....every thing that is or that can ever be...every single possible outcome of every single possible action of every single atoms or groups of atoms has been methodically thought out. It is therefore absurd to be lieve that God would have bothered to created something IT was meant to eventually dislike. And yes, good and evil are subjective personal judgement. Its just that some "personal" judgements are more popular than others but its silly to believe that God has a preference here either way since IT obviously intended for both to exist in the same universe.
"Is there any difference between what God considers "good" and what we consider "good"?"
Well,since we are not equipped with the ability to restructure reality at the sub atomic level to satisfy any whims that may traverse our minds on a given moment,then i d say the answer to that is a resounding YES.
"Here I have to partially disagree. God is good, He is self-existent, He is love..."
that sentiment,while admirable and very popular, sounds more like what you want God to be as opposed to what God actually is. Is God blue? Is IT hermaphrodite? Is God rock music? It just seems silly to me to saddle PHYSICAL attributes that only have any meaning in the PHYSICAL universe to a being that created the PHYSICAL universe from nothing at all. Before God created the universe,was IT good? and if so,good to who or to what and compared to who or to what? and who did it love when nothing existed to be loved ?
"Where does your statement about what you think God is like come from? That is, what is your warrant for saying that "God is not good or evil or loving..."?"
As stated above,every one of these concepts (love hate good evil) have meaning only in our physical reality...i dont see what possible meaning that could have outside of it.
"Of course. As St. Paul wrote, "the just shall live by faith." To which he adds, faith in the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. I trust Him; I don't trust myself."
But since you can only know anything through yourself (eyes,ears,mind),how can you trust anything you think you know about God to be accurate?
Thank you for reading me, Ludwig, but you misunderstand me when you claim Australia forces anyone to accept religion.
We are at least as secular as you in law.
But we do not have stupid rulings that prevent Christians using public rooms privately for meetings. We also allow our citizens to have a choice of schools, so that they can include religion in thei