1. New Testament Worldview by Vern Poythress [PDF] (HT: Tribalogue)
2. Philosopher William Lane Craig on the Flying Spaghetti Monster:
The real lesson to be learned from the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that it shows how completely out of touch our popular culture is with the great tradition of natural theology. One might as well be speaking a foreign language. That people could think that belief in God is anything like the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present. No doubt part of the fault lies with equally ignorant Christians who have no answer when called upon to give a reason for the hope within and who therefore give the impression of arbitrary and groundless belief. But it must also be attributed to poor education, intellectual laziness, and a lack of curiosity. Given the revival of natural theology in our day over the last half century, we have no excuse for such lame caricatures of theistic belief as belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
(HT: Maverick Philosopher)
3. How well do you know Roe v. Wade? Test your Roe IQ (I only scored 83.33%) (HT: The Dawn Patrol)
4. The People History, covering history from 1920 - 2006 for every year including popular culture, music, film and TV, technology, world events, cost of living, inflation, price of goods and property, wages and the value of money. (HT: The Presurfer)
5. Citizen Soldier
This is by far the coolest National Guard commercial ever created.
6. The New York Times on the marksmanship of police officers:
New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report. The police shot and killed 13 people last year.
In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year.
In all shootings — including those against people, animals and in suicides and other situations — New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away. Nearly half the shots they fired last year were within that distance.
From my experience in the Marine Corps –and my own poor performance on the pistol range—I can attest that hitting the target is trickier than it looks on TV or in the movies.
7. Richard John Neuhaus on politics, bigotry, and Mormonism:
I was earlier taken to task for writing that someone who declines to vote for Mr. Romney because he is a Mormon is not necessarily guilty of the civic sin of intolerance. I then explained that, in making that argument, I was not agreeing with those who oppose him because he is a Mormon. Rather, I would simply note the undeniable fact that a substantial number of Americans, mainly evangelical Christians, believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a false religion, and that a Mormon in the White House would give a substantial boost to that religion, with the consequence of imperiling the salvation of souls. We may not agree with that view, but to deride it as bigotry is itself a form of bigotry. Those who condemn that view are saying, in effect, that politics trumps religion. For the very reasons that Mr. Romney affirms in his speech, most Americans reject that claim.
(HT: Between Two World)
8. While Christianity is beneficial, it is even more important, as Alan Jacobs reminds us, that it is true:
As I have said, I doubt most of the claims made about the perfidy of religious belief in general, or monotheism, or Christianity in particular. But I wonder whether in responding to those claims of perfidy we sometimes neglect the prior claim, the claim of falsehood. After all, if the best that can be said for the Christian faith is that it has produced or helped to produce good things in this world—even the finest goods of, say, modern medicine—then it does not have a very strong claim upon us. It may be merely a kind of stepping stone, a way of understanding the world that has been useful but may now safely be abandoned for something better. Or perhaps the best things that it has produced are inferior to the best things that would be produced by another governing philosophy. Christianity only matters vitally and permanently if it brings what it fundamentally claims to bring: the redemption of humanity and the deliverance of the whole Creation.
(HT: One Eternal Day)
9. The Best Economic Books of 2007
On Sunday mornings, most parents who don't believe in the Christian God, or any god at all, are probably making brunch or cheering at their kids' soccer game, or running errands or, with luck, sleeping in. Without religion, there's no need for church, right?
Maybe. But some nonbelievers are beginning to think they might need something for their children. "When you have kids," says Julie Willey, a design engineer, "you start to notice that your co-workers or friends have church groups to help teach their kids values and to be able to lean on." So every week, Willey, who was raised Buddhist and says she has never believed in God, and her husband pack their four kids into their blue minivan and head to the Humanist Community Center in Palo Alto, Calif., for atheist Sunday school.
On Sunday mornings, most parents who don't believe in the Christian God, or any god at all, are probably making brunch or cheering at their kids' soccer game, or running errands or, with luck, sleeping in. Without religion, there's no need for church, right?
As Rusty Lopez says, "Ah, yes... teaching values, but having no means to explain where the values came from. It's funny, in a way, how the abstract cannot be avoided, even by those who deny its existence."
11. Jeremy Pierce on The Limits of Authorial Intent: "So what does authorial intent contribute to the story when the text itself can be interpreted in several ways? Can an author determine that a character is, for example, gay even if the text itself doesn't make that clear? Can an author declare the character's motivations even if the text itself doesn't make them clear?"
12. Television Tunes.com has over 3,000 TV show theme songs. (Including one my favorite theme songs, The High Chaparral) (HT: Holy Coast)
13. The Wachowski brothers, masterminds behind the 'Matrix', have released the trailer for their new movie Speed Racer. I didn’t think it was possible to make the '60s anime cartoon any less appealing, but somehow they've managed to do just that.
14. JFK's Health, Sex Life & Foreign Policy in 60 Seconds (audio)
15. Michael Fragoso on Keeping Marriage Public:
Coontz takes complex legal and theological doctrines such as consent and twists them into a vision of sexual anarchy on one hand–with men and women marrying willy nilly at their loins' urging, like characters in a raunchy Catalonian romance–or brutally subjugated to the dynastic interests of their families, as in so many hagiographies of old.
Against these cultural tendencies Western society erected laws on marriage. Not only do these laws ensure the continuation of society through the rearing of subsequent generations; they also aimed to protect the rights of men and women. For example, laws in favor of free consent as well as those proscribing consanguinity and affinity protect individuals from being forced into marriage for the sake of dynastic concerns. Likewise, public marriage banns protect women from being two-timed by bigamist rakes. It's too bad all this is lost to Coontz as she furthers her tiresome agenda.
16. Roger Kimball was asked to comment on an academic conference called "In Defense of Sloth", which the organizers describe as " the most philosophical" of vices.
In Kingsley Amis's classic novel Lucky Jim, the protagonist reflects sourly on his own academic hack work and "the pseudo-light it threw upon non-problems." The sponsors of this conference would seem to have out Amised Amis. What is the appropriate response to such exercises in cynical pointlessness? I am torn between recommending ridicule and contemptuous neglect. It may, however, be worth noting that sloth is not "the most philosophical" but rather the most terrifying and soul-deadening of vices. It is not, despite common usage, synonymous with laziness. On the contrary, as St. Thomas noted, it is a state of "tristitia de bono spirituale": sadness or despair in the face of the spiritual good that is creation. It is typical of the special idiocy of contemporary academia that it would frivolously pretend to celebrate something that, if pursued in earnest, would spread moral anesthesia and despair.
17. Image of the Week – Evel Knievel's Injuries
18. A Map of Megachurches (HT: SmartChristian)
19. Ray Van Neste on how young guys can grow up to be men. (HT: Between Two Worlds)
20. Quote of the Week – "It's time to recognize that today, as has been the case for millennia, families provide the most reliable foundation for successful economies." – Joel Kotkin in the WSJ (HT: New Covenant
21. The World's Most Earthquake-Vulnerable Cities
22. Lutherans For Life on The Incarnation & the Humanity of the Embryo:
"To deny full humanity to a conceptus [embryo] is to deny full humanity to the Savior, 'qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria virgine' (Latin). We worship the coming Savior, we worship the ascended Lord, we worship the resurrected Son of Man, we worship the crucified Lamb, we worship the Boy in the temple, we worship the Babe in the manger, we worship the Conceptus in the womb of the Mother of God. Amen."
(HT: Cranach)
"These prophecies will seem strange, almost impossible. Yet they have come from the most learned and conservative minds in America:
- Ready-cooked meals will be bought from establishments similar to our bakeries today.
- Automobiles will be cheaper than horses are to-day.
- Wireless telephone and telegraph circuits will span the world.
- Store purchases by Tube. Pneumatic tubes, instead of store wagons, will deliver packages and bundles.
- There will be no C, X or Q in our every-day alphabet.
- Grand opera will be telephoned. [...] Many devices will add to the emotional effect of music."
(HT: Ad Lab)
24. Maybe more satisfied employees don't perform better after all -- Contented employees perform well, unhappy ones don't. It seems simple enough. In fact, the association between "job satisfaction" and "job performance" has even been dubbed the "Holy Grail" of organizational psychology. But now Nathan Bowling at Wright State University, Ohio, has upset the party. His new analysis suggests the relationship between satisfaction and performance at work is largely spurious, with both factors having more to do with an employee's personality and self-esteem than they have to do with each other.
25. LOLCat of the Week
moar funny pictures
26. From the abstract of the paper, The Effect of Country Music on Suicide
This article assesses the link between country music and metropolitan suicide rates. Country music is hypothesized to nurture a suicidal mood through its concerns with problems common in the suicidal population, such as marital discord, alcohol abuse, and alienation from work. The results of a multiple regression analysis of 49 metropolitan areas show that the greater the airtime devoted to country music, the greater the white suicide rate. The effect is independent of divorce, southernness, poverty, and gun availability. The existence of a country music subculture is thought to reinforce the link between country music and suicide. Our model explains 51% of the variance in urban white suicide rates.
27. From Eugene H. Peterson's "Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places: A Conversation in Spiritual Theology" (p. 38):
We live in a culture that has replaced soul with self. This reduction turns people into either problems or consumers. Insofar as we acquiesce in that replacement, we gradually but surely regress in our identity, for we end up thinking of ourselves and dealing with others in marketplace terms: everyone we meet is either a potential recruit to join our enterprise or a potential consumer for what we are selling; or we ourselves are the potential recruits and consumers. Neither we nor our friends have any dignity just as we are, only in terms of how we or they can be used.
(HT: TruePravda)
28. The Secret to Raising Smart Kids-- The key to developing a child's potential is teaching the child that the greatest reward comes from effort, not intelligence or ability.
29. Why do high school seniors drink? -- Most high school seniors drink because they want to experiment with alcohol, some drink for the thrill of it, and others because it helps them relax. A new study finds that a fourth group of high school students share all those reasons for drinking, but they also drink to get away from problems and to deal with anger or frustration issues.
30. Is infant male circumcision an abuse of the rights of the child?
31. Research finds link between depression and heart attacks -- Depression nearly triples the risk of death following a heart attack, even when accounting for other heart attack risk factors, according to research presented today at the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP) annual meeting, which showed that among 360 depressed, post myocardial infarction patients followed for more than six years, those who did not recover from their depression in the first six months were more than twice as likely to die.
32. Can Where You Live Lead To An Early Death? -- For people in five regions of the United States, their choice of where to live may significantly impact longevity. Four areas -- the Mississippi Delta, Appalachia, Coastal Plains along the East Coast, and northern Nevada -- have clusters of counties with some of the highest mortality rates nationwide. At the other end of the scale, the upper Great Plains has groups of some of the lowest mortality rates. Researchers are not sure why.
33. Are You Smarter Than A Chimp?
The Roe quiz was kind of lame. It asks questions about what Roe "allows," but many of them involve things that Roe simply didn't address one way or another. In several of these cases Roe neither "allowed" nor prohibited the thing in question.
#32:
I don't know anything about northern Nevada, but the other locations correlated with low life expectancy were also known historcially as locations with poor, poorly educated, politically repressed populations, often minorities. On the other hand, the upper great plains was home to fairly prosperous and relatively egalitarian farming communities. I'd bet the latter have much better nutrition than the former.
Coincidence?
7. Richard John Neuhaus on politics, bigotry, and Mormonism:
There shall be no religious test for office. This is the problem with Christianists. When all becomes religion then religion becomes all. Fundamentally there is little difference between the Neuhaus's statement and the rantings of Islamists.
The only reason Neuhaus isn't as bad as some ranting terrorist is that he has been civilized by good liberals to stay somewhat within the lines of being respectable...logically, though, he would have a hard time articulating why any tolerance should be shown for Mormons or anyone else who he thinks has a 'false religion'. Think about it, why wouldn't a Mormon teacher, firefighter, little league coach etc. also imperial souls by making it look 'respectable' to hold a 'false religion'? In fact, wouldn't making those holding 'false religions' social outcasts, like we do with known child molestors, dramatically reduce the appeal of such false religions to those innocent souls?
A lot of death, despair, and suicide this time. Are you trying to tell us something?
On the FSM:
I think one could argue that the Flying Spaghetti monster accurately reflects the Christian use of "natural theology." The argument among atheists and even some Christians is that Intelligent Design theory (as it is espoused by people like Behe or Dembski, who don't appear to be all that familiar with Anselm either) is promoted by people who don't believe for reasons that have anything to do with nature and its order, but who believe either for Scriptural or merely cultural reasons. As such, the work of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, etc., are pretty much irrelevant.
I think the smarter atheists (a group that doesn't include Dawkins, Harris, etc.) would agree that there are valid and important arguments among the proponents of natural religion/theology, but argue that most ID supporters aren't aware of these arguments and certainly aren't making them. Instead, they're inferring that Intelligent Design must be right for non-scientific/scriptural/non-natural reasons. In that sense, the FSM, which is supposed to have been revealed in a silly book and then "supported" by science through an interpretation of scientific fact based on that book, is a pretty accurate parody.
Citizen Soldier
It's interesting to notice that the commercial's content (Revolutionary War soldiers, and a plainclothed militiaman running through the woods under fire) and text ("We fired the shot that created a nation") - as official claims of credit on the part of the National Guard - completely destroy the standard 2nd Amendment argument for private gun ownership rights: that the "well-regulated militia" the Amendment explicitly cites as the context of such ownership is not the National Guard, but all citizens generally. To the contrary, the Guard here claims to be not only the inheritors of, but actually continuous with those Revolutionary citizens' militias. But if the Guard is the current embodiment of the Revolutionary-period citizen's militia, as most people see them and as they now officially claim to be, then the citizen's militia is not the unorganized, unregulated, non-military general body of the public as gun-rights advocates have claimed. Kudos to the Guard for putting that issue to rest, finally. And just in time for the upcoming Supreme Court case on gun control!
"Roe test":
What tgirsch said, plus the observation that the questions are each intended to produce an answer that reproduces one of the standard anti-choice talking points. There are other useful questions to be asked: What is the ratio of deaths by attempted abortion today vs. the years just prior to Roe? How many young woman have attended college, pursued a career, or lived a life of their own choosing who would not have been able to, owing to a timely abortion since Roe? What percentage of abortions are performed annually by the right wing's chosen alarmism, intact dilation and extraction, and how many times smaller is this than the number of abortions performed annually in cases of the right-wing's chosen minimalism, rape or incest? What does a woman feel as she dies from complications of a forced pregnancy? How much more agonizing is that than the complete lack of conscious sensation of a first-trimester (>90% of all abortions) or 20-week (99% of all abortions) fetus? If abortion is murder, and there is no statute of limitations on murder, what is the average recommended jail sentence for murderers in the US, and how much more or less time than that would you recommend for the almost 50 million US women who have had abortions, or the 800,000 - 1 million per year who currently do so?
[Richard John Neuhaus says:
I was not agreeing with those who oppose [Romney] because he is a Mormon. Rather, I would simply note the undeniable fact that a substantial number of Americans, mainly evangelical Christians, believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a false religion, and [they also believe] that a Mormon in the White House would give a substantial boost to that religion, with the consequence of imperiling the salvation of souls. We may not agree with that view, but to deride it as bigotry is itself a form of bigotry. Those who condemn that view are saying, in effect, that politics trumps religion. For the very reasons that Mr. Romney affirms in his speech, most Americans reject that claim.
Or in other words: "It would be religious bigotry to reject Mormons because they are Mormons, but it is not religious bigotry to reject Mormons because they practice a false religion and are going to hell." Ohhh - kaaaayyyy . . .
"To deny full humanity to a conceptus [embryo] is to deny full humanity to the Savior, 'qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria virgine' . . . we worship the Conceptus in the womb of the Mother of God. Amen."
Um, that works only if the relationship between the two is symmetrical - that is, if the fact that the "Savior" was a human conceptus means that (other) human embryos are the Savior. It's not really my concern, but that sounds like blasphemy. The more mainstream interpretation: that Jesus was human and supernatural - and you worship him for the latter reason - offers no reason to care very much about the former. There are many things that Jesus may have been - brown-eyed, Jewish, a wine drinker, 5'6" tall, whatever - that are not worthy of worship, or particular notice whatsoever.
Depression nearly triples the risk of death following a heart attack . . . [because] . . . those who did not recover from their depression in the first six months were more than twice as likely to die.
Everbody say it with me now: "Correlation does not prove causation".
Maybe some people are depressed because they are sicker, or in some other way worse off, and therefore more likely to die.
Oh, but the link held good "even when accounting for other heart attack risk factors".
Everybody say it with me now: Lack of correlation does not prove lack of causation.
There could be some other factor they haven't tested for that drives both post-MI depression and fatalities.
Just posting a bunch of numbers doesn't tell you what's actually going on.
Roger Kimball demonstrates the appropriately contemptuous neglect of things he doesn't agree with:
What is the appropriate response to such exercises in cynical pointlessness [as a conference on sloth]? I am torn between recommending ridicule and contemptuous neglect. It may, however, be worth noting . . . not "the most philosophical" . . . most terrifying and soul-deadening . . . [not] synonymous with laziness. On the contrary . . . St. Thomas noted . . . "tristitia de bono spirituale": sadness or despair . . . the spiritual good that is creation . . . frivolously pretend . . . pursued in earnest . . . moral anesthesia and despair.
He seems to have quite a lot of serious things to say about something he regards as pointless and unphilosophical. Perhaps he should have attended the conference, rather than safely saying them out of hearing of those he disagrees with, after the fact, in a different venue.
Philosopher William Lane Craig [says:] The real lesson to be learned from the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that it shows how completely out of touch our popular culture is with the great tradition of natural theology. . . . That people could think that belief in God is anything like the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present.
Followed soon after by:
Rusty Lopez says, "Ah, yes... teaching values, but having no means to explain where the values came from. It's funny, in a way, how the abstract cannot be avoided, even by those who deny its existence."
Perhaps they should talk to each other before trying to talk to their intellectual betters. When Lopez is less ignorant of Kant, Mill, Hume, Hobbes and Locke, and a host of others past and present, he'll be less confused about where values come from. And if Craig were to speak to some of Lopez's Sunday-school friends, let alone those who actually discuss "the Flying Spaghetti Monster", he'd realize many of them are all too hilariously familiar with Anselm, Paley, and their "Intelligent Design" inheritors, and have simply rejected them as false (which is in fact "the real lesson of the Flying Spaghetti Monster").
*Sigh*... I am once again reminded of how many cultural conservatives don't believe in "spheres of authority." Churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc. can police their own if allowed the freedom to do so. There is nothing in the existing legal codes of the 50 states that would allow someone to be coerced into a marriage against their will, except maybe contract law, and there are protections in the law for a woman who would sign a "marriage contract" with a man, that would allow her to take over possession of his assets if he were a bigamist.
I just don't see why we need the state to define marriage, when most of society cannot even agree on what marriage really is, other than "between male and female humans."
I would also argue that many of the conservatives who oppose homosexual marriage creeping into the legal code, are about equally scared of a scenario where marriage is just a contract between you, your mate, and your religious body/deity. In a scenario like that, a church could easily police those who break the Bible's teachings on marriage, and would have more power to excommunicate the disobedient.
There shall be no religious test for office.
The actual text reads: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." In other words, you can't make it a requirement that any candidate for President be a Catholic or not be a Hindu, however for any elected office, voters are allowed to use any criteria they wish to select the candidate they will support. Has Neuhaus, or anybody else from the "Religious Right" advocated this? Some names and specific quotes might be useful.
This is the problem with Christianists.
What the heck is a "Christianists"? Is it someone who wishes to make belief in a particular religious doctrine a Constitutional requirement to hold a public office or something more sinister?
Fundamentally there is little difference between the Neuhaus's statement and the rantings of Islamists.
Boonton, have you been adjusting you medications without consultation, because this is a pretty bizarre statement from you.
The only reason Neuhaus isn't as bad as some ranting terrorist is that he has been civilized by good liberals to stay somewhat within the lines of being respectable.
Oh, there's that; oh and there's that he hasn't advocated civil sanctions against people he has religious differences with with; oh, oh, and that he hasn't advocated violence against heretics, gays, woman, etc., but other than that, he's just like a terrorist, except without the scruffy beard and with a Rosary instead of an AK-47.
WTF, Boonton. You are not typically this overwrought.
In a scenario like that, a church could easily police those who break the Bible's teachings on marriage, and would have more power to excommunicate the disobedient.
How could a church have 'more power' to do this? Churches already have all the power in the world to excommunicate as they see fit. If they don't do so today it isn't because there is any state law or policy stopping them but because they choose not to either for theological reasons or practical ones.
ucfengr
The actual text reads: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." In other words, ...
In other words you are very good in this case on harping on the specifics of language but are missing the spirit of the text.
Oh, there's that; oh and there's that he hasn't advocated civil sanctions against people he has religious differences with with; oh, oh, and that he hasn't advocated violence against heretics, gays, woman, etc., but other than that, he's just like a terrorist, except without the scruffy beard and with a Rosary instead of an AK-47.
And why not? Logically 'savings souls' is very important isn't it? Probably more important than saving lives no? If it is ok to deny the Presidency to a qualified person because his religion is wrong and seeing someone with the wrong religion might cause more souls to be lost than gained then why doesn't this calculus apply everywhere else? Why should you not equally seek to deny such a person of other positions of respect and influence such as other elected offices, highly visible jobs and professions and so on?
Needless to say you overlook the fact that there are intellectual Islamists who don't tote AK-47's and scruffy beards but argue quietly against religious tolerance. In this regard Muslim nutcases have an advantage in that the Koran actually set some limits on how much intolerance a Islamic society should practice while there seems to be no logical limit to Neuhaus's reasoning.
Indeed you're right that Neuhaus has not advocated terrorism, intolerance and all other types of bad things. Logically he should if he takes what he said seriously...or otherwise if he is uncomfortable with the logical consquences of his words then he should rethink them.
In other words you are very good in this case on harping on the specifics of language but are missing the spirit of the text.
What, words actually having meaning and intent now Boonton? You argue all the time that we can make them say whatever we want. Anyways, the spirit of the text isn't that people can't determine who to vote for based on that person's religious beliefs. It's that everyone has an equal shot to run regardless of their religion. However, if someone followed a religion that believed in child sacrifice, I would consider that relevant to determining their suitability to office. It's the same thinking that caused Kennedy to address questions about his Catholic faith. If you watch the recording of the event, you actual see serious questions and answers to important issues. Of course they aren't important if you don't think religion has any effect on a person's worldview.
The only reason Neuhaus isn't as bad as some ranting terrorist is that he has been civilized by good liberals to stay somewhat within the lines of being respectable.
Luckily I wasn't drinking my pop when I read this. It is so benighted even for you.
ucfengr
What the heck is a "Christianists"? Is it someone who wishes to make belief in a particular religious doctrine a Constitutional requirement to hold a public office or something more sinister?
This is the Left's attempt to tie Christians and Islamists. They would prefer to fight those that won't behead them. It's much easier that way.
You are not typically this overwrought.
Boonton seems to be starting the move towards Leftist nuttiness. You see it happen once and awhile on religious/conservative boards. They get so wrapped up in these boards and when their "logic" fails to persuade they lose it. A couple posters have done that here. About three years ago one guy who seemed fairly stable suddenly started ranting about seeing a certain sermon/meeting and the things "we" were going to do to "them." He never did provide any details that anyone could check.
Boonton:
There shall be no religious test for office.
You misunderstand that principle. The Constitution limits the power of the government to exclude persons from candidacy on the basis of religion. Individual citizens and groups are at liberty to make whatever more or less stupid test they want.
Personally, I think such a religious test is foolish apart from critical analysis of the implications of the content of the religious beliefs for excellent governance. But you (and others) are wrong in saying that the Constitution forbids us from using religious tests in selecting our candidates.
There is always was and always will be a religious test in America...its been present in the US ever since its inception...its called the voting process and if your not a member of the electorate's prefered religious cult, the chances of being elected to serve to any office are small and they shrink to near non existant the higher the office gets. Thats not a rant or a condemnation mind you as this is how democracy is supposed to work anyway...one of the cons i guess. But it is a sad state of affair that most religionist will most of the time choose to elect a professing religious candidate even if he s incompetent over a competent secularist or "gasp" atheist because of their irrational belief that God will compensate for the incompetant canditate's shortcommings and would probably curse the country if an atheist ever became president.
What, words actually having meaning and intent now Boonton? You argue all the time that we can make them say whatever we want.
Actually I don't but let's keep going...
Anyways, the spirit of the text isn't that people can't determine who to vote for based on that person's religious beliefs. It's that everyone has an equal shot to run regardless of their religion.
The spirit of the text is that religion should not be a test for office. If you are saying "I will not vote for X because he is a Mormon" then you are applying a religious test. While I understand this insight may appear stunning to you, I assure you it has been common knowledge in Reality Land(tm) for quite a while now.
You are correct in that the Constitution has no mechanism to police voter's intent.
However, if someone followed a religion that believed in child sacrifice, I would consider that relevant to determining their suitability to office.
Good for you. This argument is so stunning I don't think anything else could possibily be worth saying about it.
It's the same thinking that caused Kennedy to address questions about his Catholic faith. If you watch the recording of the event, you actual see serious questions and answers to important issues. Of course they aren't important if you don't think religion has any effect on a person's worldview.
It is legit to ask how a person would make major decisions if he was elected and while the concern was somewhat hysterical it was fair to ask Kennedy if he would 'take orders' from the Pope. Likewise it's reasonable to ask Romney if he 'takes orders' from the LDS Church, Huckabee if he takes orders from any Baptist group and so on. That's not what was said by Neuhaus, though. He said simply electing someone of the 'wrong religion' would cost souls because that religion would be granted a measure of respect...therefore a religious test should be made by voters on candidates.
Boonton seems to be starting the move towards Leftist nuttiness. You see it happen once and awhile on religious/conservative boards. They get so wrapped up in these boards and when their "logic" fails to persuade they lose it....
Tsk tsk, I'm not upset that logical fails to persuade you of anything. To date you've given me no evidence that you're persuaded by logic so why would I be disappointed now? It would be nice, though, if you actually tried using some from time to time but instead you fall back on childish name calling.
Try reading the whole article again without the victimized secularist hyper-emotion coloring your thoughts. Even in that portion that was quoted for this blog article, Fr. Neuhaus is saying he is not part of the crowd that holds that view. In another portion of the article in fact, he says that he is accustomed to a heretic being seated in the White House, as are most Catholics and Jews. If you can't read the whole article, then you can skip to the last paragraph for the summation, which puts your rant squarely in the hysteria realm (I'm guessing that is the location of your Reality Land acreage).
“Indeed you're right that Neuhaus has not advocated terrorism, intolerance and all other types of bad things. Logically he should if he takes what he said seriously...or otherwise if he is uncomfortable with the logical consquences of his words then he should rethink them.”
“The spirit of the text is that religion should not be a test for office. If you are saying "I will not vote for X because he is a Mormon" then you are applying a religious test. While I understand this insight may appear stunning to you, I assure you it has been common knowledge in Reality Land(tm) for quite a while now.”
Are you saying that the constitution, in addition to prohibiting the government from limiting candidates by religion, also says that citizens should specifically not factor religion into their voting decisions?
Different people have all sorts of concerns and issues that go into their decisions. Some may seem stupid and irrelevant to most other people, but it’s each person’s right to make a decision based on whatever factors they choose.
Neuhaus is concerned that electing a mormon could have a downside outside of politics and advocates factoring that into a decision. Other people are free to agree or disagree with him. All of that, stating an idea and then persuading people to agree with you, is what we do in a free society. And there’s no comparison between free people exercising those rights and someone with a secret hidden desire to run society like a fundamentalist police state that uses violence against those who question it.
I mean, what are you arguing? That you simply disagree with Neuhaus’ criteria, or that you think the constitution says he shouldn’t think that way, regardless of whether or not it’s enforceable?
The spirit of the text is that religion should not be a test for office.
Just out of curiosity, what happens to a text's "spirit" when it dies?
If you are saying "I will not vote for X because he is a Mormon" then you are applying a religious test.
But that is not what the text says. What you are arguing is that the "spirit of the text" says something other than what a plain reading of the text says. What I want to know is how do you communicate with the "spirit of the text"? Do you use a Ouija Board or do you read goat entrails? Perhaps if you describe you method for "spirit" communication, we could all talk to the "spirit of the text" and find out what it is really trying to tell us rather than actually read the text, which is obviously irrelevant. Do other documents, like playing cards for example have "spirits"? What would happen if the "spirit of the cards" told me that my pair of deuces beats your straight flush?
To date you've given me no evidence that you're persuaded by logic so why would I be disappointed now?
This is quite amusing coming from someone who claims to commune with the "spirits of the text".
Are you saying that the constitution, in addition to prohibiting the government from limiting candidates by religion, also says that citizens should specifically not factor religion into their voting decisions?
In essence that is obvious....note the use of the word 'should' rather than 'must' in your post. The Constitution was written in a spitit of free inquiry, free debate and tolerance. Yes you could violate all those things and still keep within the letter of the law as far as the Constitution is concerned. Should you? Probably not. Will anyone do anything to you if you do? Again probably not.
Then again if you like to throw your trash out of your car window while speeding down empty highways where no cop will see you, nothing much will happen to you. Should such behavior be applauded? Can't someone criticize such behavior without having to advocate an Orwellian surveillance system to watch over everyone at every minute?
I'm a bit perplexed by all the bewilderment here. Not too long ago I remember an argument floated here of the form:
"Person X supports Roe.v.Wade passionately. Person Y opposes abortion because they are Catholic. Person Y opposes Roe.v.Wade. Therefore Person X opposes the election/nomination/confirmation/whatever of Person Y. Therefore Person X is discriminating against Person Y because of his religion!"
This amazingly stupid argument won applause from the usual suspects here but a statement like:
"Person X is a Mormon. Mormonism is a bad religion which will cost people their souls if it gains anymore respectability. Therefore if someone opposes Person X simply because he is a Mormon that IS NOT a religious test"
Seems to make sense to the same suspects without even batting an eye.
Just out of curiosity, suppose I accept Neuhaus's argument that such people cannot fairly be accused of religious bigotry. Then what would a voter motivated by religious bigotry look like? It seems like if one's bigotry is dressed up in a lot of impersonal and non-vendictive sounding talk it's perfectly fine. The guy who blurts "I don't want no Mormon bastard in the White House" is a bigot but the guy who clamly says "I think Mitt is a wonderful guy and I have lots of good Mormon friends but allowing one to win a high elected office must be opposed as any additional amount of social toleration of Mormonism will cause even more souls to be lost" is OK.
#6 - See how deadly guns are when used by trained people?!? In 2005 you report 472 shots fired with 9 fatalities and a 43% accuracy when the distance is less than six feet.
People have some real misperceptions about firearms. Don't get me wrong, they can be deadly but Hollywood has given people the wrong impression.
In this case, I’d bet that a lot of the bewilderment comes not from criticizing Neuhaus or his views, but doing so with a comparison to Islamic terrorists. It’s one thing to say another guy’s views are wrong, but when you say thing those views then put him on the same level as people who kill over religious differences, without a compelling argument to support the claim, its going to generate a heated response. And choosing not to support a guy for office over religion, however objectionable, is a long long way from advocating violence.
Personally, I may question Romney’s reasoning behind Mormon beliefs, but see no reason why his religion would have any problem with him being President. That being said, I don’t see how the Constitution gives any indication at all that any private citizen shouldn’t feel free to factor in that or any other issue when deciding who to vote for. It simply prohibits the government from restricting the candidacy to particular religious pratictioners only, and that’s all.
It’s one thing to say another guy’s views are wrong, but when you say thing those views then put him on the same level as people who kill over religious differences, without a compelling argument to support the claim, its going to generate a heated response.
Heated responses are always welcome but before you start tossing more coals on the fire take a moment to note that I acknowledge that Neuhaus wasn't a terrorist. Only that is where his 'logic' goes if he follows it through. Fortunately MOST of us don't follow our logic through all the way. If we did we would get ourselves in a lot of trouble so perhaps we have some instinct that makes us distrust even our own 'logical conclusions'.
That being said, I don’t see how the Constitution gives any indication at all that any private citizen shouldn’t feel free to factor in that or any other issue when deciding who to vote for. It simply prohibits the government from restricting the candidacy to particular religious pratictioners only, and that’s all.
Here is how you can isolate a single slice of text and derive contradictory meanings from it. One could imagine people wanting to have strict religious orthodoxy as a requirement for office but distrusting elected officials or judges from enforcing that orthodoxy. So they prohibit the gov't from having a religious test for office in the hopes that the voters will pick up the slack and enforce a religious test that will not be corrupted by the temptations of high office. Likewise we can imagine people who feel gov't is a secular affair and hence one's religion should not disqualify one for elected office (with all due respect to smmtheory's exception for those with intolerable religions that do things like human sacrifice). In both these universes one could see these people writing a Constitution stating no religious test shall be given for office.
So the question is which universe was closer to the Founders and the answer is the second one. Did they leave an enforcement mechanism? No. Are you required to follow what would seem to be their wishes? Not at all. To use another example you can be a vocal advocate of monarchy and still be within the bounds of the Constitution provided you used all the proper tools to try to achieve it (such as Constitutional Amendments). Would this be in line with the spirit of the Constitution? No.
Now you can fairly say this is an 'argument from authority' and you're indeed correct. The Founders do not have any supernatural authority so you are free to defy them as you please. However considering the Founders have more or less stood up as pretty good authorities one should be careful in just ignoring them AND if you are you should be honest that you are doing so.
This being said, there is something very wrong when all the major GOP candidates seem to take a large amount of time talking about their theological views of Jesus. If you guys want a Church with an elected Pope then go make one and stop mucking up public policy.
"This being said, there is something very wrong when all the major GOP candidates seem to take a large amount of time talking about their theological views of Jesus. If you guys want a Church with an elected Pope then go make one and stop mucking up public policy."
The only reason that the candidates are talking about it is because the media won't let it go. It was CNN that chose the ridiculous question from the rube asking the candidates whether they believed every word of the Bible. Do you think anyone in the media would dare go after Hillary or Barak's soteriology?
I would love to see Hillary or Barak grilled about what their faith means in practice. Instead democrats get a free pass to mouth some pithy tritness about their faith, while republicans are constantly harassed by the media to explain every interpretation of their faith. Democrats get to have it both ways. They can campaign like crazy in a black church and get a pass. The media's condescending view of blacks lets them regard this as silly and harmless, while a republican in front of a crowd of evangelicals is somehow sinister.
Here is how you can isolate a single slice of text and derive contradictory meanings from it.
Boonton, if you read the test, the meaning is plain; "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." There is nothing ambiguous about that. It is you that has to "waterboard" the text to get it to say what you want it to. If that is how you wish to interpret the text, good on ya, but nobody else is obligated to, because your interpretation is not what the text says. Besides, where's the evidence that the authors of the Constitution support your view? I can find no indication in the Constitution as a whole or in any of the other writings of the authors to indicate that their view comports with your's.
Actually, that was Chris Lutz. If it makes you feel any better though, it sounds like a description of people who faithfully and religiously favor abortion rights.
You forgot the third universe... the one where the government is restricted from making religion a qualifier for holding office, and the electorate is free to use whatever decision making factors they choose, thereby limiting the Constitution to focusing only on how the Government should operate, and not how the electorate should operate. That's the problem with your interpretation Boonton, it's a form of thought control that the founders never ever would have approved of.
Yeah, nothing personal to Fr. Neuhaus, he's not an Islamic terrorist, he just reminds you of one, right? But it is not his logic he was describing, it was logic that he was describing of some of those who would refuse to vote for Romney because of his being a Mormon. In actuality, Fr. Neuhaus was arguing that people should select who they vote for by four criteria that had NOTHING to do with religion. If you had read the summation of the article with an open mind, you should have realized that.
The only reason that the candidates are talking about it is because the media won't let it go. It was CNN that chose the ridiculous question from the rube asking the candidates whether they believed every word of the Bible. Do you think anyone in the media would dare go after Hillary or Barak's soteriology?
Sorry but it is something that is being discussed by many GOP voters and there is real angst over Romney's Mormonism (and I'm talking about his religion alone, not the more traditional political questions of whether his stands are real or if he flip flopped too much). That's not some invention of CNN.
I would love to see Hillary or Barak grilled about what their faith means in practice. Instead democrats get a free pass to mouth some pithy tritness about their faith, while republicans are constantly harassed by the media to explain every interpretation of their faith. Democrats get to have it both ways.
Compare Romney's "JFK" speech with JFK's actual speech. He isn't trying to make CNN happy (come on, how many Republicans really get upset if they think someone has pissed off CNN?) but Republican voters happy.
That's the problem with your interpretation Boonton, it's a form of thought control that the founders never ever would have approved of.
Talk about twisting language. How hard to you have to squeeze "no enforcement mechanism" and "you are free to disregard their wishes" to turn it into "thought control"?
Yeah, nothing personal to Fr. Neuhaus, he's not an Islamic terrorist, he just reminds you of one, right? But it is not his logic he was describing, it was logic that he was describing of some of those who would refuse to vote for Romney because of his being a Mormon.
Sorry, I guess I should have said that while Neuhaus himself does not hold logic that is functionally equilivant to Islamists (BTW, not all Islamists are terrorists, as I pointed out there are Islamists who simply oppose religious freedom but are not supporters of terrorism. The gov't of Saudi Arabia would be a good example) he is basically apologizing for logic that is.
So then what Chris Lutz said is basically true? This is your way of attempting to tie Christians and Islamist terrorists together since you would prefer to fight those that won't behead you as a proxy for those that would?
I'm not sure why smmtheory thinks criticism of religious intolerance is the same as criticism of Christians. I think he owes us all an apology for his horrible bigotry.
Re Sunday School for Atheists:
"As Rusty Lopez says, 'Ah, yes... teaching values, but having no means to explain where the values came from. It's funny, in a way, how the abstract cannot be avoided, even by those who deny its existence.'"
This is still nonsense, no matter how many times theists say it. Values are a manifestation of human culture, like music, law, dance, manners, customs, etc. It is ridiculous to assert that values can only have arisen from a divine source. People say this as if it were self-evident; doing so relieves them of the nettlesome task of supporting their assertion.
What bigotry, and who is 'us'? Hey, if you want to criticize religious intolerance, go ahead and criticize it. You want to prove your intellectual superiority, though? Do it without comparing Christians to Islamists, because that's just mudslinging.
The only reason Neuhaus isn't as bad as some ranting terrorist is that he has been civilized by good liberals to stay somewhat within the lines of being respectable.
The only reason Neuhaus isn't as bad as some ranting terrorist is that he has been civilized by good liberals to stay somewhat within the lines of being respectable.
Is this the latest groupthink of the Left? I've seen this phrase pop up on all manner of discussion boards with just the name of the person/group changed. It's really absurd.
Rob Ryan
This is still nonsense, no matter how many times theists say it. Values are a manifestation of human culture, like music, law, dance, manners, customs, etc. It is ridiculous to assert that values can only have arisen from a divine source. People say this as if it were self-evident; doing so relieves them of the nettlesome task of supporting their assertion.
Sorry Rob, but you have the situation reversed. All worldviews have certain axioms that it is impossible to question. Let's look at atheism.
Axioms:
1. there is no god(s)
2. matter is all there is
3. matter is governed by physical laws
So, let's accept, for the moment, all of these as true.
- Man is made of matter
- Matter is governed by physical laws
- Man is governed by physical laws
- Because man is governed by physical laws, man has no free will. Otherwise, man is somehow able to avoid physical laws which violates the axiom #3.
- With no free will, there is no "ought" there is only "is." "Morality" therefore is only some manifestation of physics. Your "belief" that it is wrong to murder someone has the same physics as someone who has the "belief" that it is good to murder someone. My "belief" that there is a Christan God, is no different than your "belief" that there is no god.
In conclusion, you have to explain how you get any morality based on the above axioms. In other words, you can't complain that theists call for an outside source for morality, you can only state that there is no morality.
Sorry, Chris, but your whole criticism falls apart the moment you posit "There is no god(s)" as axiomatic of atheism. Some atheists claim there are no gods, but most do not. You probably call such atheists "agnostics". It is a false dichotomy.
"With no free will, there is no 'ought' there is only 'is.'"
This is true only if one claims, as I assume you do, that morality is objective. As I believe that morality is subjective, "ought" derives from the person, whether or not you view his will as free or not. Depending on how one defines free will, it may indeed be true that we lack it due to our governance by physical laws. However, the laws and mores of society are based on the presumption that we do have free will, and that same presumption informs our construction of values systems.
"In other words, you can't complain that theists call for an outside source for morality, you can only state that there is no morality."
You are wrong on both counts. I can complain that theists call for an outside source for morality, and I can acknowledge the existence of morality. You probably mean objective morality every time you use the word; you probably have a hard time thinking of morality in any other way.
Morality, in my opinion, exists, but only as a concept, highly subjective but strongly influenced by socio-environmental factors that lead to broad commonality. Morality comes from us; no external source is required. Some people are frightened by the thought that morality is tethered to things as ephemeral as custom and biological and social advantage; such people need to create or adopt an external source to make them feel secure and "right". They are welcome to do so, as far as I am concerned, but they need to back it up if they expect me to follow suit. If morality can only come from an external, objective source, they need to prove it.
Some atheists claim there are no gods, but most do not. You probably call such atheists "agnostics". It is a false dichotomy.
No, atheism by definition is a belief that there is no god. But, I won't quibble with the definition change. It doesn't change my basic point. I can even change the axiom from "there is no god" to "there is no knowable/observable god who interferes with the universe" because it won't impact your views on the other two axioms unless you don't accept axioms #2 & #3.
Depending on how one defines free will, it may indeed be true that we lack it due to our governance by physical laws. However, the laws and mores of society are based on the presumption that we do have free will, and that same presumption informs our construction of values systems.
You're gliding by the point here. How can people, as matter, escape the fact that all matter is dictated by physical laws. We don't have any presumption to anything. You're slipping teology into a strictly physical process which by default has no meaning. We don't claim that the planets presume to have free will in going around the sun.
If matter can somehow achieve free will outside of physical laws, then you have to explain how that happens.
You are wrong on both counts. I can complain that theists call for an outside source for morality, and I can acknowledge the existence of morality. You probably mean objective morality every time you use the word; you probably have a hard time thinking of morality in any other way.
So, you don't accept that matter is all there is then? Or you claim that we somehow avoid physical laws?
You can't use items like we presume to have freewill. You need to explain how we have freewill in your worldview. I can put you in a sealed box that you can't get out of and you can presume to leave all you want. You're still trapped in the box. If you want me to accept that there is any morality, which requires freewill, you have to show how we aren't in the box.
Hey, if you want to criticize religious intolerance, go ahead and criticize it. You want to prove your intellectual superiority, though? Do it without comparing Christians to Islamists, because that's just mudslinging
Ahhh but I'm not allowed to point out that intolerance logically leads to the extremes that we reject in Islamists. Why?
Chris
Is this the latest groupthink of the Left? I've seen this phrase pop up on all manner of discussion boards with just the name of the person/group changed. It's really absurd.
Why? Certainly we do have a culture that frowns very deeply on taking intolerance to its logical conclusion which is persecution. That has no positive benefit? Or are you saying the right is so intellectual superior that they don't need cultural restrictions to keep them from going off the deep end?
- Man is governed by physical laws
- Because man is governed by physical laws, man has no free will. Otherwise, man is somehow able to avoid physical laws which violates the axiom #3.
You're assuming free will is not a part of physical laws.
- With no free will, there is no "ought" there is only "is." "Morality" therefore is only some manifestation of physics.
Not really. Even if free will doesn't exist why wouldn't 'ought' exist? It would seem 'ought' could exist, the only problem is whether or not your behavior is in line with 'ought' wouldn't be up to you.
The only reason Neuhaus isn't as bad as some ranting terrorist is that he has been civilized by good liberals to stay somewhat within the lines of being respectable.
Maybe reading comprehension has escaped you Boonton. He didn't say we had a culture that provided a restraint on certain behaviors. He said good liberals. So obviously he thinks that it is the intellectually superior left that is restraining those on the evil right. This is as bad as your misreading of Neuhaus' statement.
You're assuming free will is not a part of physical laws.
Well, I'm waiting to hear what physical laws dictate free will. When does matter get to use those freewill laws? Can I expect the earth to decide to exercise its free will physical laws and fly out of its orbit into space?
Not really. Even if free will doesn't exist why wouldn't 'ought' exist? It would seem 'ought' could exist, the only problem is whether or not your behavior is in line with 'ought' wouldn't be up to you.
Who decides 'ought' then? No person can because none of us have freewill. If 'ought' just exists, then you are disputing Rob's claim. Actually, his claim fails if 'ought' is dictated by someone else, like a god. Finally, 'ought' implies morality and purpose. How can those exist when we don't have freewill?
"No, atheism by definition is a belief that there is no god."
By your preferred lexicographal authority, perhaps. Mine is the Oxford English Dictionary. The narrow definition offered by many American dictionaries plays into the hands of people who want to relegate the term to a tiny group that claims a universal negative and force people like me into the indistinct "agnostic" category which includes deistic types. No thank you. You go with your dictionary; I'll go with mine.
"How can people, as matter, escape the fact that all matter is dictated by physical laws."
They cannot. Now you tell me how physical law in any way impedes one's ability to choose.
"If matter can somehow achieve free will outside of physical laws, then you have to explain how that happens."
Wrong! You have to show why it cannot.
"So, you don't accept that matter is all there is then?"
If by matter you include the set of physical laws we associate with it, then , as far as I know, that is all there is. I still don't see which physical law(s) you think prevents the firing of electrical impulses across nerve synapses.
"You can't use items like we presume to have freewill. You need to explain how we have freewill in your worldview."
Actually, I can. You have to show why I can't. The presumption of free will is all that is necessary for a system of morals. In a larger sense, we might not even agree on a definition of free will. That would depend on to what extent we ascribe to determinism.
"You're still trapped in the box."
You haven't shown that such a box exists. Get busy and show me and the world why physical laws and free will are at odds.
"Who decides 'ought' then? ... Finally, 'ought' implies morality and purpose. How can those exist when we don't have freewill?"
We each decide that for ourselves. Fortunately, we have high correlation due to similar self-interests and socital influences. Surely you have noticed that your "ought" differs somewhat from mine. You have yet to define free will or prove we do not have it. Physical law keeps me from flapping my arms and flying to work, but it doesn't seem to impede my ability to choose a route.
"Who decides 'ought' then? ... Finally, 'ought' implies morality and purpose. How can those exist when we don't have freewill?"
We each decide that for ourselves. Fortunately, we have high correlation due to similar self-interests and societal influences. Surely you have noticed that your "ought" differs somewhat from mine. You have yet to define free will or prove we do not have it. Physical law keeps me from flapping my arms and flying to work, but it doesn't seem to impede my ability to choose a route.
Dang! Double post. The first one had a typo, and I tried to stop it. Clearly, some physical law thwarted my will. Or maybe I should have proofread before hitting the ol' post button.
As I stated once already, that is just mudslinging, because the last two words ('in Islamists') are not even necessary to criticize religious intolerance. Also, you have a very weak case that the alleged religious intolerance is strong enough to lead to your supposed logical conclusion. Your case can only be supported by some substantially dubious assumptions... like the assumption that the intolerant person holds as much esteem for all the other authority positions as much as he does the President of the United States and as much as he does for the pastor of his church. You're trying to do a heck of a lot of leveling there, all by assumption.
No thank you. You go with your dictionary; I'll go with mine.
And that's fine. As I said, it really doesn't change the nature of the discussion.
Now you tell me how physical law in any way impedes one's ability to choose.
Can I choose to fly by flapping my arms? Can I choose to run 500 mph by will alone? You may say that that doesn't involve my choices in the actions I take, but it does. You can't do either of those things due to physical laws. Those same physical laws dictate your genetic code, your environment, and how your synapses fire. It's more complicated than saying you can't flap your arms to fly, but the logic is the same. You are reading this post and acting based on all sorts of stimuli and cause certain responses. All of those responses are based at the most basic level on physical laws.
Wrong! You have to show why it cannot.
You notice what you are doing here don't you? In regards to there being a god, you demand proof. When I ask for proof that an all material universe dictated by fixed laws, you say I have to show you that they can't allow freewill. In the first, you're asking me to defend my worldview which is fine. But, I would think that you have the requirement to defend yours and provide the positive proof that freewill can exist.
Anyways, we are already constrained by all manner of physical laws...you can't flap your arms to fly, you can't run 500mph, you can't go without food and water for a year and live, etc. So, all the evidence points to us as material being constrained by physical laws. What physical law allows you to escape this evidence. I guess you could call me, in a manner, an atheist in regards to freewill in your worldview. There just isn't enough evidence. ;-)
The presumption of free will is all that is necessary for a system of morals.
Assuming we have freewill doesn't mean we have freewill when designing the system of 'morals.' I can presume to write the laws for the planet, but that doesn't mean I can. You're begging the question with this line.
Physical law keeps me from flapping my arms and flying to work, but it doesn't seem to impede my ability to choose a route.
How do you know you are choosing your route? A computer can choose a route for you to take to work. Does that mean the computer has freewill?
Maybe reading comprehension has escaped you Boonton. He didn't say we had a culture that provided a restraint on certain behaviors. He said good liberals.
Now you're going to tell us liberals haven't dramatically influenced our modern culture? I'll keep this in mind next time I read some right-winger talking about 'culture wars'.
Well, I'm waiting to hear what physical laws dictate free will. When does matter get to use those freewill laws? Can I expect the earth to decide to exercise its free will physical laws and fly out of its orbit into space?
You need to tell us exactly what you think free will is or means. You asserted that free will cannot exist in a world solely of matter. It's quite reasonable to ask why this assertion is valid? If free will means that actions are inderterminate then yes indeed that would fit quite nicely with the world of matter.
Who decides 'ought' then? No person can because none of us have freewill. If 'ought' just exists, then you are disputing Rob's claim. Actually, his claim fails if 'ought' is dictated by someone else, like a god. Finally, 'ought' implies morality and purpose. How can those exist when we don't have freewill?
You are equating free will with morality but the two are different things. You can imagine, I'm sure, that it isn't logically impossible to assert free will exists but morality doesn't. Likewise the reverse is also logically possible, no free will but morality nevertheless exists.
On a micro-scale we admit such things happen all the time. We say a person who is totally insane may do something immoral but we say he doesn't have free will so we excuse his behavior.
smmtheory
As I stated once already, that is just mudslinging, because the last two words ('in Islamists') are not even necessary to criticize religious intolerance. Also, you have a very weak case that the alleged religious intolerance is strong enough to lead to your supposed logical conclusion. Your
In order to make a comparision between two things you have to specify what those two things are. Sure you could make many arguments against religious intolerance without ever mentioning Islamists. So what? That doesn't make an argument against it using Islamists any less valid.
Your case can only be supported by some substantially dubious assumptions... like the assumption that the intolerant person holds as much esteem for all the other authority positions as much as he does the President of the United States and as much as he does for the pastor of his church.
I haven't the slightest idea what you are trying to say here. In both the Islamist and the intolerant person Neuhaus described the same general idea exists, that in public policy tolerance for other religions should play second fiddle to 'saving souls'. Hence Neuhaus's voter would deny public office to someone because it would 'endorse' the wrong religion and cost souls which is more important than freedom. Likewise the Islamist would see prohibitions on those holding 'wrong faiths' as doing a greater good of saving souls. The only difference is that most of the time Islamists take the logic to its conclusion while Neuhaus's voter seems to have an arbitrary limit.
I don't see what this would have to do with respecting the President more or less than the local pastor.
Chris again
Anyways, we are already constrained by all manner of physical laws...you can't flap your arms to fly, you can't run 500mph, you can't go without food and water for a year and live, etc. So, all the evidence points to us as material being constrained by physical laws. What physical law allows you to escape this evidence. I guess you could call me, in a manner, an atheist in regards to freewill in your worldview. There just isn't enough evidence. ;-)
If you define free will as being able to escape constraint of physical laws then indeed the evidence does seem to be pretty sour on that question. This isn't how most people define free will, though. Few people think it is a supernatural act to knowingly write a bad check or to give some spare change to charity or to resist the temptation to take advantage of someone. Likewise if you somehow magically got the power to fly by flapping your hands no one would say that is in itself 'free will'.
To make some sense out of this, why don't we say that free will is the ability to make decisions. If you are unable to make any decisions...say your brain is being controlled by a microchip implanted by some evil scientist then you don't have free will. Barring such a thing, though, your brain does seem to have the ability to make decisions. What does that mean? When confronted with a range of possible behaviors, the only thing that is able to determine your acts is your brain. There, now you have free will with materialism.
How do you know you are choosing your route? A computer can choose a route for you to take to work. Does that mean the computer has freewill?
If the computer fits the above then yes. It's 'freewill' is of much more limited range though because its decision making ability is highly constrained. A dog would have thousands of times more decision making ability than a computer program that picked routes to work. What would you make of 'computers' like the cyclons on Battlestar Galactica? Would you say they don't have free will? If not, when did they cross the boundary between 'no free will matter' to 'matter plus free will'?
"In regards to there being a god, you demand proof.'
Actually, I demand no such thing, so long as you do not demand that I believe what you believe. I'd need some very strong evidence to abandon my default position, however. And since I do not claim that freewill exists, I am under no obligation to prove that, either. You claim that freewill and materialism cannot coexist; shouldn't you at least try to back up your statement? You are the one making the claim here. I only state that I do not believe in your god (or any other, for that matter). I assume that all material is subject to physical laws and that human beings, including their minds, are physical entities. Therefore, I would consider the term "free will" meaningless if subjugation to physical laws negated the concept it embodies, since in my view such a condition does not exist.
"I can presume to write the laws for the planet, but that doesn't mean I can."
Don't underestimate yourself! Of course you can; getting others to accept and follow them is the hard part. Of course, I do not think that moral standards are imposed by individuals. I think they evolve in societies.
"How do you know you are choosing your route?"
Because I know what the word "choice" means. If a person cannot choose, the word has no meaning. Yet we know the word does have a meaning; we can look it up. My dictionary says nothing about choice being negated by the fact (or supposition) that the human mind is subject to physical laws. To me, "choice" means choosing between possible options, and the fact that I cannot flap my arms and fly does not impede my ability to choose; it simply limits my options in the way that physical laws have been limiting our options since before the concept of free will was hatched. You seem to think a choice is not a choice if it is the end result of material acting under the constraint of physical laws. I would say that that is the only sort of choice I am aware has ever existed.
If that is all you've got, you have failed utterly to show freewill and materialism to be incompatible. You can't just redefine terms like "free will" and "choice" to reflect your presupposition of a disconnect between the human mind and the physical world and expect others to go meekly along.
Making an unfavorable comparison as you did is not a criticism, though, it is mudslinging. And mudslinging does indeed make an argument less valid than a more constructive criticism.
Actually making an unfavorable comparision is indeed criticism. That's the entire point of using an 'unfavorable comparision'. Its essential form is "You should not do X because that will make you like Y" with the unspoken assumption one does not want to be like Y.
You've not shown us why "X is not like Y", instead your response has been to assert "X is not Y" but that was never the argument to begin with. If X was Y then that would be like telling Osama Bin Laden that he should be more tolerant because otherwise he will be like an Islamist. He would likely respond with something like "Duh, I am an Islamist idiot".
That is not criticising a behavior like religious intolerance, that is a character attack on the person you are making the unfavorable comparison about. I don't need to show why Fr. Neuhaus is not like ibn Laden, that is totally irrelevant since any normal person can understand why he is not. And my assertion was never that Fr. Neuhaus is not ibn Laden either, since any normal person can understand that he is not also. No, my assertion has been that a character attack is not a criticism of a behavior and to say that it is a misrepresentation of your assertion.
I apologize that I haven't been able to reply to your comments Rob and Boonton. Work has suddenly intruded to a larger extent than expected and looks to do so through the season. So, I will not be able to reply in any substantive way. Just let me conclude with my preferred definition of freewill:
the partial freedom of the agent, in acts of conscious choice, from the determining compulsion of heredity, environment and circumstance
BTW, a computer under such a definition has no freewill because you can always determine what caused each action. It's the same for us if you take a materialistic view of the universe.
Have a Merry Christmas.
"BTW, a computer under such a definition has no freewill because you can always determine what caused each action. It's the same for us if you take a materialistic view of the universe."
I have a materialistic view of the universe, but I don't flatter myself by claiming the ability to determine all factors shaping human choices.
thank you