quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I think the irony of this clause is that it has, in recent times, the principle behind it has been interpreted to mean something very similar to what it seems designed to prevent. It has been interpreted, I think, to more or less establish secularism as our national pseudoreligion.
Although it may not be correct to call secularism either a religion or set of religions, we can call it something similar that I am going to label "pseudoreligion" for the sake of this argument. As a pseudoreligion, it is similar to a religion in that it entails assumptions that define the way we go about making decisions about what is ethical, what should be valued, and how we should live our lives. It is also similar in that it entails assumptions that define the way we should look at the world, describe it, learn about it, and work within it. In short, although a secularism does not entail any ideas about spirituality or the supernatural, it DOES entail unproven claims about the same domains that religion does, can conflict and contradict religions in these domains, and act in a way that is generally similar to a religion.
Consider, then, the following common views on how government and religion should be separated:
- People claim that government actions must be based upon secular values and secular arguments. Or, in other words, the government cannot regulate something (like homosexuality) because Christian beliefs entail it being wrong, but it CAN regulate something purely on the grounds that secular beliefs entail it being wrong (as in the case of rape.)
- Many believe the government cannot teach Muslim or Mormon or Hindu views as the recognized truth in schools, but can teach secular views as fact.
- Many agreee that the government cannot include Christian symbolism like the Ten Commandments in public courtrooms or schools or other public places, but that the government is definitely allowed to bring whatever secular artifacts it wants.
And so on - you get the idea
If you look at these things, you can see how non-Christian religious groups would be oppressed in some way if we replaced "secular" with "Christian." For instance, imagine if we only allowed our government to base laws on Christian values and arguments, or if we only allowed Christian views to be taught in schools to the exclusion of others, or only allowed the Christian statues in our courtrooms. All of these things are exactly what it seems the First Amendment are designed to prevent, and yet we do all of them with secularism.
So why, if secularism covers the same territory as religion, do we allow this? Do the secularist assumptions not cover the same territory as religion, as far as our government goes? Is it any more fundamentally justifed?
One view is that secularism is a fair and neutral ground, so it's okay for government to use it. This is false - as some people accept the assumptiosn of secularism and some don't, so it's not neutral at all.
Another view is that secularism is rationally justified, while religion is not. This is largely false too, as we can't ultimately can't justify the basic assumptions of secularism (stuff like "actions aren't wrong unless they cause suffering to someone" or "there must be a 'rational' basis for calling something wrong") any better than we can justify the basic religious assumptions (like "what the Bible says is wrong is wrong.) Of course, those who believe in the basic tenets of secularism THINK it's justified and THINK everyone should believe it, but to have our government assume this is unfair to the minority that do not believe it.
A third view is that secularism is not a majority view, so it cannot be oppressive in the way Christianity would. This is false too, though, because many people who agree with Christianity ALSO agree with secularism (unlike with atheism, they are very much not mutually exclusive.) Secularism is MORE of a majority view than Christianity is, I suspect.
My argument is that we should NOT adopt secularism as a fundamental assumption of government, to the exclusion of all others. We should accept views based on God's word into pbulic discourse just as much as we accept views based on fundamental humanist assumptions. We should not exclude supernatural explanations of evidence from schools, and we should not teach that one explanation is necessarily right while the other is not when there is great disagreement over the matter. We should include public expressions of the influence religion has on our culture and thinking just as much as we include expressions of the influence of secularism, secular teachings, and secular scholars. The government should not endorse one set of ideas to the exculsion of others, whether that set is supernatural or not, or whether it is widely accepted or a minority view. All it needs to refrain from doing is claiming one group is right, or aligning itself exclusively to one group. That is the idea of church-state separation - not the exclusion of non-secular values, ideas, and views from the public realm.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's amusing that you completely discount the traditional arguments for the superiority of secular law. Let me restate them for you, since they are in fact rather compelling -- despite your dismissals.
1) Secular law is non-discriminatory. It elevates no specific group above any other group based solely upon group membership.
2) Secular law is non-arbitrary (and, indeed, rational). It is based on concrete evidence of harm and malfeasance, in the same way that secular history and/or secular science tend to be based on actual principles rather than simple fictions.
3) There is no default "secular philosophy," and no universal secular creed. Moreover, under secular law, those who DO subscribe to alternative creeds are free to do so.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Its fun to find enemies. It makes our fight seem so much bigger and nobler if there is a demon we are fighting.
There is none here. There is no "Secular Clergy" that wants to crush the Christian way of life.
There is no "Secular Pseudoreligion" that the liberals are pushing.
There is also no standard universal "Relgion" or "Christianity". Instead we have some churches that are conservative and some that are moderate, and a few that are even liberal, but most are a mixture of these terms on a mixture of things.
So when you say that your religious point of view is being blocked by Secularists, you are mistaken. It is being blocked by people who don't agree with your interpretation of doctrine, or your religion at all. They are trying to stop you from making your religion the law of the land.
You say, "According to my faith am my beliefs, Homosexuality is a sin."
Fine. I suggest that if you want to maintain good standing in your church, you don't commit any homosexual acts.
Not beleiving Jesus Christ is our savior, the only son of God, is a sin according to many Christian churches. Yet you would not expect a voting booth require us to say that before we are allowed to vote, would you?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
If we are to have a government by and for the people, then it must also reflect the beliefs its constituents have.
I do believe in separation of Church and State in that the State has no business establishing an approved state religion. But it also cannot simply shun people's opinions because they are developed from a religious belief.
Secularism may not be a religion, per se, but it is a belief system with its own dogma and basis for rules/beliefs.
It is no better or worse than any others, but simply is something a portion of the population adheres to. It should be afforded the same respect as other belief systems, but no more so than any other.
As a person who holds their religious beliefs close to the core of their being, I do feel that secularism has overstepped its bounds and has begun aggresively proselitizing its own belief system.
As an American, I feel I have the right to reject such things as I choose. I also have the right to look at things presented to me that have grown from a different belief system and accept them as well.
The current movement towards secularism does seem to have a rather draconian edge to it that seeks to quash anything stemming from a religious mindset. To follow such a path exclusively would be foolhardy and incredibly narrow-minded.
But it also boils down to an incredibly difficult situation in our society right now. The growing belief that no one can be deemed as "wrong." And that values are something that are as mutable as the very wind we form our voices from.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: 2) Secular law is non-arbitrary (and, indeed, rational). It is based on concrete evidence of harm and malfeasance, in the same way that secular history and/or secular science tend to be based on actual principles rather than simple fictions.
I’m no fan of laws inspired solely for religious reasons. However, this contention is just not true.
Any non-trivial debate about legal principles involves balancing competing rights and interests. Choosing to elevate one over the other without any higher evaluation criteria is, by definition, arbitrary.
For example, the Civil Rights laws place societal interest in the equal treatment of citizens by private individuals over the property rights of other individuals. I think it does so correctly, but it’s specious to pretend that secular law contains any justification for doing so.
There are lots of less controversial examples, as well. Look at the dispute over gun ownership. Generally, both sides make pragmatic arguments about whether or not gun ownership causes or prevents harm to individuals. But one side also makes the argument that ownership of weapons is a right to be protected, even if the pragmatic arguments favor the other side of the argument. What secular principle helps you pick between the other secular principles at issue here?
I generally favor laws only in cases where non-individual harm is involved. But I don’t pretend that this principle provides any reasoning for pick which harms should be regulated at the expense of individual rights.
posted
"Choosing to elevate one over the other without any higher evaluation criteria is, by definition, arbitrary."
*nod* Which is why certain regulations are not as well-written as others, and should specifically enumerate their reasons. However, the fact that not all secular laws are well-written is not a reasonable challenge to the rationality of secular law.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, they may be compelling to a secularist like yourself, and most people in America are secularists (in that they have been raised to believe in the fundamental secular principles), but when you get down to comparing secularism to alternatives, they don't really prove secularism is better any more than arguments for any religion/pseudoreligion do. And we shouldn't be basing the secularism of our government on the fact that the majority thinks it's right - that's exactly what the separation of church and state is hoping to avoid. I mean, I think Christianity is compelling - doesn't mean it should become the law.
1) Secular law is non-discriminatory. It elevates no specific group above any other group based solely upon group membership.
Of course it does - it elevates academics, and those educated in secular ways of thinking. It hurts those who base their views on tradition and authoritative sources like the Bible, which are defined as "arbitrary" by secularism (see below).
2) Secular law is non-arbitrary (and, indeed, rational). It is based on concrete evidence of harm and malfeasance, in the same way that secular history and/or secular science tend to be based on actual principles rather than simple fictions.
It is no less arbitrary than Christianity or any religion is (unless you already accept the secular definitions of arbitrary). What you call concrete evidence of harm and malfeasance, as a person who believes in secularism, is no different from the way violations of God's law are concrete evidence of harm and malfeasance to certain Christian individuals. Christians don't believe the stuff in the Bible is just arbitrary stuff you know.
3) There is no default "secular philosophy," and no universal secular creed. Moreover, under secular law, those who DO subscribe to alternative creeds are free to do so.
Yes, there is. Secular philosophy includes such tenets as "there must be an observable reason for things to be defined as wrong", "human beings matter but supernatural things do not," "right and wrong should be determined based on consequences in this world," and so on.
There is no universal secular creed, but there is also no universal Christian creed. And few Christian groups would believe people should be banned from believing otherwise.
posted
I would like to point out that in most cases it is fine to teach "supernatural" explanations of the origins of the universe and the creation of earth and its inhabitants. However this should be done in the humanities classes NOT in the science classes.
Scientific study is a philosophical construct that precludes the idea of "and then a miracle occurred".
quote:*nod* Which is why certain regulations are not as well-written as others, and should specifically enumerate their reasons. However, the fact that not all secular laws are well-written is not a reasonable challenge to the rationality of secular law.
I'm not challenging the rationality of secular law. I just want to acknowledge its inherent limitations and, ultimately, arbitrariness. Even the choice to emphasize individual rights over public order is not a foregone conclusion based solely on secular reasoning.
Similarly, I don't want religious reasoning excluded from making the normative decisions necessary to implement secular law, as long as the principle implicated is within the "valid" scope of secular law.
Defining the word "valid" in the sentence above is, of course, difficult. Even the traditional reaosning limiting secular law to those areas which affect more than the individual requires defining what a valid "effect" is for regulation. It's a fascinating philosophical discussion that requires the presence of large quantities of beer to truly appreciate.
posted
Tres, I'll concede one point: secularism is, indeed, based on the principle that it's possible to judge the consequences of actions based on observational evidence in this world and this lifetime.
If you discount this premise, I submit that the entire friggin' world makes no sense at all, and must be really disconcerting to people who aren't willing to believe in cause and effect.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are certain viewpoints that feel to me like they are widely accepted by The Powers that Be and are "preached from on high" that I don't agree with. Political Correctness comes to mind. Many of them are subtle, but it can feel oppressive. The idea that because Christian White Males ruled the world a century or less ago we have to build everyone else up and surpress the CWM is particularly distasteful to me. The idea of trying to make up for past inequality with more inequality is wrong.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that it is "possible to judge the consequences of actions based on observational evidence in this world and this lifetime." However, deciding which consequences are most deisrable when two compete is not possible based solely on observational evidence in this world and this lifetime.
posted
Beverly: Ah, see, what you're confusing here is "secularism" versus "militant liberalism."
There's a distinction here, however, and I think it's important to keep in mind that they're not the same thing. You can't fairly lump one together with the other any more than you can say that Catholics are anti-Semitic.
-----
Dag: I agree that there's always the danger of not thinking far enough ahead, or looking for substantial evidence.
quote: Tres, I'll concede one point: secularism is, indeed, based on the principle that it's possible to judge the consequences of actions based on observational evidence in this world and this lifetime.
If you discount this premise, I submit that the entire friggin' world makes no sense at all, and must be really disconcerting to people who aren't willing to believe in cause and effect.
It makes no sense as long as you hold to the belief that you cannot get truth from non-secular sources. There are many people that believe things that they know cannot be proven, and the world seems to make sense to them.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, Tom, I never called it Secularism. I merely inferred that all my life I have felt that their is a widely accepted ideaology amongst those in authority that I disagree with.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter and I read a book together (can't remember the title now) about what is real and human communication. The author's whole point was that there can be no absolute reality, that it is all based on perception. I thought it was funny that he was stating that as an absolute reality.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, the book basically said "It is morally wrong to say that anybody is morally wrong to disagree with you, and it is morally wrong to think otherwise."
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
so the book was advocating moral relativism.
---
You know I had this long response to tom's first post and it all came down to the fact that the present laws in the USA diverge greatly from the ideas that tom listed. Which has absolutly nothing to do with the discussion.
posted
An expectation that a law must have validity without religious connections seems to me to be an obvious thing because different religions have different priorities and different rules, yet the law must apply equally. Why should I obey a law decreed by a god I don't believe in?
Is it overused at times? Sure. Are religionists unfairly prosecuted or repressed because of it? Yes. But that shows us where the problems lie, not that we should throw the whole thing out.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* Another good point, of course, is that it's foolish to hold up the laws of the United States as classic examples of what the laws of a "secularist's" ideal society would look like, as they very clearly aren't. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I agree that secularism is analogous to a religion in the sense that you claim. But secular norms are not analogous in this way to religious norms. The reason is that secular norms underlie religious belief systems as much as secular ones.
Here is what I think is basically an accurate picture of the polity: everyone believes the "secular" facts, i.e. the facts about the material world. These include facts about what is manifestly harmful to people. From these facts about harm arise a set of secular norms -- ways in which we ought to act in order to prevent harm.
Everyone, including religious people, pretty much accepts these norms.
Then there are a great number of additional systems of belief: the religions. Most of these do not involve the denial of the material/secular facts. Instead they involve the belief in a number of other facts over and above the material facts. These lead to the acceptance of religious norms, which follow from the supposed religious facts, by the segment of the population which believes in a particular religion.
The upshot is that there is a set of secular norms which everyone in the community accepts, as well as many sets of religious norms, each of which is accepted by one particular faction. Can't you see why it might make some sense to base our government on the commonly agreed-to secular values and material facts, rather than any particular set of religious ones, when the secular norms are fully compatible with the practice of nearly all of the religions in question?
What results is a system in which everyone in the community obeys the secular norms, and additionally those who are religious keep to their religious norms. There is no need for everyone in the community to become a secularist in order for the community to obey secular norms.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This argument is based on the assumption that practically everybody in the polity (fun word!) beleives in the secularist doctrines. That simply isn't the case.
Take creationism for example. There are a lot of people that do not beleive in the secular truth of the creation of the species.
There are many cases where the secular view is completely opposed to religious views. Secularism is not a shared belief system. It is one of many competing belief systems.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point, however, is that if secular humanism did not exist it would be necessary to invent it. When used properly, secularism should be what you get when you strip all the religious doctrines away.
What should we base our laws on, to apply equally to those from all religions?
What should we teach in schools, to be of equal use to those from all religions?
I believe our laws must be as inclusive as possible, for what should be fairly obvious reasons. I believe our schools should teach what has been observed, and let the families and the churches teach how that can be interpreted.
Secularism, properly applied, should mean "this is what we can see, and how we've decided is the best way to live with each other." The hows and the whys should be the province of religion.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Take creationism for example. There are a lot of people that do not beleive in the secular truth of the creation of the species.
Actually, I think this is the only example of somewhat widespread religious disagreement with established facts about the material world. As such, it merely shows that those who accept creationism are being inconsistent. In all other areas of life they are more than happy to accept the facts as discovered by mainstream science. So the general norm of believing science and acting as though it were true is quite widespread.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's useful to note that what are being called "secular norms" are not being adopted for the sake of being secular. We base our society on what we believe to be the minimal set of principles necessary to coexist. We then allow citizens the freedom to add whatever belief system they choose on top of it, up to the point where they may contradict. You can call the initial set of rights "secular," but their essence is actually compatibility, not ties to religion or lack thereof.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:Take creationism for example. There are a lot of people that do not beleive in the secular truth of the creation of the species.
Actually, I think this is the only example of somewhat widespread religious disagreement with established facts about the material world.
I'll give you another one. Many people have believe that the earth is running out of room, and that if we don't curtail our population growth very soon, there will be widespread disaster.
Here's a quote from the Doctrine and Covenants, and book of scripture of the LDS faith: "For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare". This says to many that we don't need to be concerned with overpopulation -- there is enough, and to spare.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard, you make an excellent point. Seclarism has served America throughout our entire history, and we do need some sort of middle ground. But part of the argument that has been made is that secularism has been increasing its reach into things that are not middle ground. I can't say if that's true or not, but many people feel that way.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the particular set of norms identified as "initial" are not the only set that could be chosen using that criteria. So it's no use pretending that that set of norms is substantiated by any fundamental normative principles that are objectively provable.
My view of the correct restriction on which moral principles should be given legal force derives from a principle that as much as possible should be left up to the individual conscience, which means limiting legal restrictions to areas which fundamentally effect how people interact. This principle is derived from my religious beliefs, though.
quote:Can't you see why it might make some sense to base our government on the commonly agreed-to secular values and material facts, rather than any particular set of religious ones, when the secular norms are fully compatible with the practice of nearly all of the religions in question?
The assumption that we should base decisions solely on agreed-upon values and not on contraversial values is flawed. For instance...
A: I think the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein was removed from power. B: I agree. A. I think we should invade Iraq to do that. B. I think preemptive strikes are wrong. A. Well, since we disagree on the validity of preemptive strikes, we must not factor that in to our decision. We must base our decision SOLELY on the assumption that the world would be better off without Saddam - since that is what we agree upon. Therefore, we should invade Iraq.
This is unfair to B. Why?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the particular set of norms identified as "initial" are not the only set that could be chosen using that criteria.
Didn't say they were. The fact that Jefferson and Madison took their cue from Enlightenment philosophers is irrelevant; it doesn't make us a Deist nation.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on. I doubt more than 1,000 people nationwide who have given that issue any sort of thought would accept that passage over the evidence of population growth and the simple mathematical fact that the doubling rate of a population leads to exponential growth.
You might believe that the evidence points another way, but anyone who would actually take that passage as having any relevance to the modern issue of population control is too irrational to productively take part in society. It's as if there were a scriptural passage stating "there is no such thing as a flightless bird," and those reading it denied the existence of kiwis and penguins.
Anyway, I'm not denying that there are fringe cases like this one. I'm merely denying that any significant fraction of the population would be nuts enough to actually deny any palpable scientific findings -- other than the strange special case of evolution, which a number of people seem to hate -- on the basis of scriptural writings alone. First, there aren't that many claims about observable phenomena made in the Bible. Second, most of the remaining passages (including the LDS one you mention, I'm sure) can be read charitably so as to make room for empirical inquiry.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
A: I think the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein was removed from power. B: I agree. A. I think we should invade Iraq to do that. B. I think preemptive strikes are wrong. A. Why?
I couldn't respond unless I knew how the discussion progresses from that point. While they may both agree that Saddam Hussein should be removed, they may disagree on how that should be accomplished, what the timetable for that should be, the priority of such a move compared with other needful things, and how much involvement the U.S. and the U.N. should have.
You'd have been better off choosing a situation when religious principles are the ones being regulated, as in the case of abortion. The laws of abortion hinge on the legal definition of "human" and that's definitely a place where secularism and religion will conflict. But for the most part our laws must be based on mutual principles, and not any specific religious belief.
[ March 01, 2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that Jefferson and Madison took their cue from Enlightenment philosophers is irrelevant; it doesn't make us a Deist nation.
I didn't say it did. But our system of government is based on a set of first principles that are not objectively provable, which in puts them on the same footing as any other set of first principles, including religious.
I happen to think it's a good set of principles in general, because it allows different sets of first principles to coexist in a relatively peaceful way and have meaningful input into political decisions.
Because the example is so minimally pared-down that it bears no resemblance to the sort of ethical decision-making that actually goes on in government.
For one thing, we are talking about which norms should be used as the basis for law, not which individual actions should be taken by our representatives. "Saddam Hussein should be removed from power" is not a norm. It's an individual judgement which is surely based on a norm.
Also, the way you've cast your example the agreed-upon value implies the value that A holds but B disagrees with. If that's true, then B is being inconsistent. Otherwise A's argument "The world would be better without Hussein, therefore remove him from power" would be invalid.
So in your example, either A is in error or B is.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You might believe that the evidence points another way, but anyone who would actually take that passage as having any relevance to the modern issue of population control is too irrational to productively take part in society.
I'm going to have to assume that you didn't realize how arrogant that sounded. You are saying that because I believe that we will never run out of room or food on this earth, that I have apparently am not able to participate productively in society, all other evidence notwithstanding.
I didn't pull that out of a hat: I took something that I believe that I know contradicts the rational evidence. I am very aware of the principle of exponential growth. I just don't think that we'll ever get to the point of disaster.
As an engineer, I am no stranger to rational thought and analysis. It's just that I don't base all of my belief system on demonstrable evidence. I am a rational being, but not a purely rational being.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could be anything, it shouldn't matter.. how about this-
B. Because they are just wrong by nature.
On the contrary, "why" should matter more than anything else. From your examples I'd rather not have our policies set by either A or B.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going to have to assume that you didn't realize how arrogant that sounded.
You're right, I didn't. Sorry about the tone of the post. I assumed that since you said "many" believe that the passage implies the world will never become overpopulated, rather than "I believe this," you were not including yourself among the believers. If you had presented the view as your own that would've changed my opinion very little but my expression of it quite a lot.
quote:I didn't pull that out of a hat: I took something that I believe that I know contradicts the rational evidence. I am very aware of the principle of exponential growth. I just don't think that we'll ever get to the point of disaster.
And your only basis for this belief is spiritual?
I find this seriously perplexing. Why do you believe, as I presume you do, that scientific inquiry is accurate in other cases but not in this one? What sort of evidence could shake your belief that the world is not and will never be overpopulated? Widespread starvation? Destruction of arable land, especially in the densest human-occupied regions such as China and India? Some of these signs are already apparent.
This is completely different, I think, from believing in God or angels or some such on scriptural basis. These are beliefs that cannot obviously be falsified by any possible evidence. But your disbelief in overpopulation must be falsifiable. There is an obvious way that the material world would change if it became overpopulated. What if those changes were to happen? Would you abandon your belief then? At what point do you begin to trust evidence as regards this question, and why?
quote:As an engineer, I am no stranger to rational thought and analysis. It's just that I don't base all of my belief system on demonstrable evidence. I am a rational being, but not a purely rational being.
I've been convinced by what I know of decision theory that (insofar as beliefs are concerned) one cannot be a rational being without being purely rational. You can't consistently have a rational method for forming beliefs about one topic and an irrational method for forming beliefs about another topic. If you do, I will be able to draw you into a "Dutch book," or a wager which you will lose no matter the outcome.
Of course, other mental states besides beliefs, such as emotions, are not bound by constraints of rationality in this way, so it is still possible to be "irrational" in that sense.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Details Destineer.... but if you like, here's an example about norms and laws:
A: I think certain religious groups are more likely than others to cause terrible terrorist attacks on American soil. B: I agree. This seems to be true. A: I also think we should try to avoid terrorist attacks on our soil. B: I agree with that too. A: So, I think we should ban all those religious groups more likely to cause terrorism. B: Well, I think people have a right to practice whatever religion they want, freely and openly. So, we can't use that method. A: Well... I think they don't. And since we disagree on the existence of that right, it shouldn't be factored into our government's decisions. So, we are going to ban any religious group associated with terrorism - that will be our new norm.
So is this fair or unfair towards B? Why or why not?
Edit: And if A wants to know WHY B thinks there's no right, B just says because he or she sees no evidence why there would be such a right.
posted
We believe that God is wiser than man is. If God says something, it is true. Man uses science and logic to try and understand the world. Even when observations are correct, wrong conclusions may be reached if some information is missing. How many times has one theory of the universe had to be discarded when new information is presented? How many times yet will it happen?
On the subject of overpopulation, I trust what I believe God has said. I believe that despite crowded conditions in parts of the world, God knows a way for all His children to live and be well supported on this planet, or that God knows that through other phenomenon, the world will never reach so high a population as scientific evidence suggests.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: And your only basis for this belief is spiritual?
You seem to be saying that I should be allowed to believe in whatever I want, as long as it does't crose *this* line or *this* line. Religion should confine itself to the goings on of the afterlife, and stay out of it's believer's current lives.
Religious beliefs are not something that you can compartmentalize into one part of your life, or into one part of the universe. It's like what you said about being a rational being -- if you don't believe in a religion that affects every aspect of your life, then it's not much of a religion. I don't believe in a religion that stays "safe" by never saying anything that can be refuted.
I believe in a universe where God is smarter than man, and where God sometimes tells man things that he couldn't have figured out on his own.
What would happen if I were proved to be wrong? Good question. I'd have to look at it all over again.
The most obvious weak link in my chain is my interpretation of what I believe to be divinely inspired scripture. Does that verse really mean what I think it means? Does it mean that we *cannot* run out of space/food, or that we won't because we'll be smart enough to not let that happen?
Now, I don't think that it's something unworththy to be examined carefully. But in examining this issue, I will naturally take the above verse into consideration. Why? Believe I believe that it comes from the most intelligent Being in the universe, and even if I don't understand it yet, there is truth there.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Either A's argument is unsound or B is contradicting himself by believing V1 and V2 but not V3. Looking at the specific example you give, I would judge the former.
The main problem with both your examples is that you take the agreed-upon values to imply one of the disputed values. If that were true, it would be easy to show that one of the speakers is wrong. If it were false, there could be no basis for A to compel B to follow the disputed value.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC-fan, I'll be blunt: you should listen to these conversations for a while before participating in them. Atheism is not a religion, as we've previously discussed several times on this board, and neither do the vast majority of atheists consider it one.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, secularism and atheism are not the same thing. Secularism basically says "I believe in what I can see". Atheism says I "I believe that there is no God, even though I know that it can never be proven"
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, more properly stated, atheism is "I do not think there is a god because I see no evidence to suggest that god exists."
What I call evangelical atheism -- which certainly does exist, but which is a very small subset of the larger philosophy -- is "I believe there is no God, regardless of the evidence or lack thereof."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Clearly not, at least the way the terms have been used in this thread. Atheism is the view that God does not exist. Secularism is the view that God should have no bearing on what sort of government we form.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that most people, including the vast majority of believers, would say that you cannot prove the existence of God to a non-believer.
But then, there's the agnostics. They say that it is impossible to ever know if there is or if there isn't a God.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks again OSC-Fan for pointing out the problem in the arguments.
Some of the conservative religious in our midst have trouble distinguishing between religion and non-religion. Why? Because they dedicate thier whole life to religion and have trouble fathoming how anyone can not do the same.
So that Atheusm must be, in reality, a religion. So that Secular logic must be, in reality, a religion.
They do not comprehend how someone can live without a church, a minister and set of written words to guide them in every aspect of their life.
I salute them and their faith.
However, not everyone who seeks God does so through the church, or the bible. Not everyone who is believes in evolution is un-Christian. Christians do believe and teach that the world is running out of room, that the environment needs to be protected, and that God created the universe through the process of evolution.
There is a call on this thread to do away with Secularism and replace it.
I ask with what?
We cannot turn our country over to the non-secularists, for the simple reason that there is no unified group of non-secularists. There are a wide range of religions that exist in this country.
Are you suggesting that we turn this country over to a specific religion? How about Christianity? We can let the Christians rule, after all, their fringe members claim that this is a Historically Christian Country. But which Christian church should it be? Pat Robertson has a lot of people on his TV Show. But the Catholic Church seems to have a strong, and growing, presence here. Maybe we should vote on it. Whoever has the most votes gets to rule this democracy. And if they want to push their own limited sects beliefs, they have earned the right.
Of course, they may not recognize the Mormon's as "true Christians" but I'm sure they won't treat you any worse than the Muslims, Jews, and Wiccans.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
