quote:It ought to be borne in mind that Romney is not a mere rank-and-file Mormon. His family is, and has been for generations, part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith. .... The Book of Mormon, when it is not "chloroform in print" as Mark Twain unkindly phrased it, is full of vicious ingenuity.
Mad cult?? Convicted fraud (convicted by those who arranged his death by mob!)?? Supporting the allegation that the push-poll that maligned him to New Hampshire voters was started by Romney himself?? Are they not even pretending to be unbiased anymore?
I don't care about Romney politically and anyone attacking him for the switching views can knock themselves out and that's fine, but considering Slate's major beef against him seems to be his religion, this really bothers me.
[ November 26, 2007, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Oh, never mind. It's Christopher Hitchens. The knee-jerk, anti-religious vituperation is his bread-and-butter game.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I wish Romney would answer questions about Mormonism.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Isn't there a lot of evidence suggesting that the Romney campaign did comission that push poll? If I recall correctly, it was done by a Utah firm that has several prominent Romney donators to it, using a phone line that has been traced to people the Romney campaign paid around $1 million for consulting work and has been used for other Romney campaign calls?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Scott, I agree. I wish he would too. Maybe he's saving it for later? I don't know.
Mostly, it was the rhetoric about the church that bothered me. Not that he says it, but that a news organization would put their editorial weight behind calling the church a "mad cult."
It helps that his name is up there, though. Since he says the same thing about all religion and proudly, it discredits this column specifically.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I wish Romney would answer questions about Mormonism.
Me too especially so that ridiculous publications, peppered with out right lies and half-truths, would be given less serious consideration.
edit: Maybe he is not confident in what sorts of questions he ought to field in regards to Mormonism. Being asked if Mormons believe the Garden of Eden is in Missouri seems pretty pointless IMO.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Why is that pointless? Why that question in particular, I mean?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Why is that pointless? Why that question in particular, I mean?
How does that question have any bearing on whether Mitt Romney's beliefs will effect his presidency? It's like asking any other candidate with Christian beliefs if he/she really believes that the tomb preportedly to be the tomb of Jesus is the ACTUAL tomb.
edit: Or asking a Jew if they really think the Ark of the Covenant is perhaps hidden somewhere in Palestine.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mormons believe that Eden-- insofar as it was a literal place-- was in Missouri.
Joe Normal, hearing the answer to this question (heck, even hearing the question at all, and the implied answer in it), will be led to think Mormons have some strange beliefs. Joe Normal, presumably will be more inclined to think of Romney as not-presidential-material because of his weird religious beliefs.
It's true-- in comparison to run-of-the-mill Christianity, we're pretty weird.
HOWEVER-- Romney could, and SHOULD, turn such questions around to point out that all religions are weird when viewed from the outside, and that a particular religious doctrine doesn't necessarily detract from the believer.
"Yes. Mormons believe that, insofar as the garden of Eden was a literal place, it was in Missouri. We also believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, that Elijah raised the widow's dead child, and that Christ was resurrected. Also, I bet I get more questions about my underwear than any Victoria Secret model, ever, and there's just something...wrong with that. I'm sexy and all, but really..."
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The implication that there exist Mormons who are not "mere rank and file" Mormons is extremely weird.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think the Garden of Eden in Missouri is a couple of orders of magnitude more bizzare than the Jesus' tomb thing (edit: misread what was written).
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: Maybe he is not confident in what sorts of questions he ought to field in regards to Mormonism. Being asked if Mormons believe the Garden of Eden is in Missouri seems pretty pointless IMO.
It is pointless in that there should be no religious test for any elected office.
However, it isn't pointless if you want to hear a presidential candidate say something silly.
And by 'silly', I mean only by comparison. Most Americans are familiar with Christian theology, and so nothing in there sounds particularly silly at least in part because we're used to hearing it.
Very few Americans, relatively, have heard of the tenets of LDS theology. And so "the garden of eden is in Missouri" will strike people as silly. And to some people, a president who says or believes silly things is not a good president.
The same thing happened when they asked Dennis Kucinich if he saw a UFO.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But there are a couple of different tombs. There's the Holy Sepulchre and the Garden tomb.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, Dennis Kucinich and the UFO is a better analog.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Make sure you get to page 2 where the defenses are made. And, of course, keep in mind that NRO has it's own political agenda.
From what I can see, there's a possibility that what Squick says is correct. But more likely than not this is just what happens when one of the largest polling firms (which services hundreds of clients, including candidates competing against each other) is based in Utah.
I mean if we wanted to take the conspiracy a step further...
What if one of Romney's competitors (or an anti-Romney freelancer) commissioned the push poll knowing that the company had all these ties to the Romney campaign and that they could then foment a reverse scandal.
I'm not saying that that's the case at all. That would take a certain level of sophistication that I'm not sure any of the campaigns have. But it's just to say that if you let circumstantial evidence about any campaign be a deciding factor, then your probably aren't giving the candidate his due. I mean, I probably should give Giuliani a closer look instead of just dismissing because of the Bernie Kerik business.
Frankly, I hope Romney loses so we can be done with all the silly Mormon coverage. I also would have liked to see a Republican candidate I could get behind (moderate social views, strong foreign policy experience/interest, fiscal conservative, semi-libertarian*).
As weird as it sounds to me, I think John Edwards is the only candidate I'd consider voting for right now.
*Which is not to say that these accurately reflect my views but they do describe the type of Republican candidate I'd probably find appealing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think the Garden of Eden in Missouri is a couple of orders of magnitude more bizzare than the Jesus' tomb thing, assuming that you just made a mistake and aren't using a trick question (i.e. Jesus, by traditional Christian belief wouldn't be buried anywhere).
He laid in a tomb during 3 seperate days. So there is a tomb out there somewhere.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, somehow I thought you were implying he was still buried in it. I edited my earlier comment.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think maybe the best analog would be if there were a Scientologist candidate running. Would it be wrong to ask if he really believed the stranger things that Scientology teaches?
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:stranger
I'm pleased to see you rate us a step above Scientology, Squick.
Edit: silly, outdated UBB tags.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zalmoxis:
quote:stranger
I'm pleased to see you rate us a step above Scientology, Squick.
Edit: silly, outdated UBB tags.
In defense of Squick, I'd like to state that personally I put all the religions that I have studied (Christianity, Catholicism, LDS, Islam, Judaism, etc) on the same level of strange. Scientology, however, is definitely stranger.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think how I see you is really relevant. It's the public's perception that is important here, and many of them see you as essentially Scientology for Christians. If a Scientologist's beliefs would be fair game, I don't see how an LDS's wouldn't be.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: In defense of Squick, I'd like to state that personally I put all the religions that I have studied (Christianity, Catholicism, LDS, Islam, Judaism, etc) on the same level of strange. Scientology, however, is definitely stranger.
Ditto. The idea of a scientologist president... *shudder*
Though I kind of like like the "Don't ask. Don't tell" religion thing they seem to have going in Canada.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Oh come on. We all know that once a Mormon gets elected we'll all be ordered to give up our coffee, marry multiple wives and eat green jello.
Just like if we ever had a Catholic President we'd all become robots to the Vatican and the Spanish Inquisition would be used on illegal aliens.
Oh wait, that didn't happen when Kennedy was President.
I haven't seen a lot of forced baptisms when Evangelicals were president.
I don't recall many churches being burned down during the hey-day of some non-believers.
But you have to admit, it does happen. We had a Quaker for president. You know them Quakers with their silly non-violent attitude. Well that Quaker president seemed to spend a lot of his time ending the only good war we had going at that time.
I am of course, referring to President Nixon.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I have to side with Squicky that Mormons are pretty strange. I don't really know enough about Scientology to draw any comparison. But I'd find it hard to ignore the beliefs of a Seventh Day Adventist, a Christian Scientist, or a Jehovah's Witness seeking office, or a "Jews for Jesus" Adherent.
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
I'm thinking that squick's "stranger" comment was misinterpreted, though I could be wrong. I read it as he was speaking of the stranger beliefs of scientology as compared to other scientology beliefs, not as compared to mormonism.
This is like, if I believed that the sun were carried across the sky on the back of an elephant. And I also believed that gravity somehow keeps me on the ground. An outside observer might percieve my sun travel belief as one of my stranger beliefs.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, Happy Camper is probably right about what Squicky meant.
I'm not sure the location of the Garden of Eden is doctrinally important to Mormons. I could be wrong. I mean, if you believe Joseph Smith is a prophet, and you know he said it was in Missouri, then it's important - or at least becomes an issue if one were to prevaricate on the issue. Though Joseph Smith said a lot of things, kind of like St. Paul and that bit about baldness being a reproach to women.
It doesn't appear to be canonical.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I wonder what sort of stuff they'd say about an atheist presidential candidate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I read it as he was speaking of the stranger beliefs of scientology as compared to other scientology beliefs, not as compared to mormonism.
That's how I meant it.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
If we wait a while, Matt will show up and say where the reference is from and where it stands in regards to accepted canon.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I wonder what sort of stuff they'd say about an atheist presidential candidate.
That's an easy one: "What did he think he was doing, running for President? Everyone knows an atheist has no chance."
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I think that it's hard to objectively judge how weird a belief is. We're biased by what we grew up hearing, what the culture around us believes, and what our own beliefs are. On the whole, I'm willing to tolerate a few harmless "weird" beliefs as long as they don't affect policy. So if Romney thinks that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, fine. If he starts treating Missouri differently from other states or orders the government to go digging around for the remains of the garden, that's a problem.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Some people argue that all our great presidents actually were atheists... Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I wonder what sort of stuff they'd say about an atheist presidential candidate.
How about a list?
-Immoral. -Cold-hearted. -Going to hell. -Doesn't believe in anything. -Wants to burn down the churches. -Will turn this into an atheist nation. -Will put believers in camps like Hitler or kill them like Stalin. -Will let doctors abort babies in the ninth month. -Will worship Satan in the Oval Office. -Will allow homosexual marriage, and then let people marry animals.
Shall I continue?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Don't forget Christmas. He's going to kill Christmas.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Trying to sneak a little Godwin's law in there like sanitary napkins in the grocery list?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's pretty clear that Washington wasn't an atheist.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But not Jefferson or Lincoln, eh?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Some people argue that all our great presidents actually were atheists... Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington.
As much as I would love to claim Jefferson for the atheists, it seems pretty clear he was a deist. No friend of organized religion, and not a believer in any sort of personal god or anything supernatural, but not technically an atheist.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Shig, I basically agree. most religious people hold beliefs that I think are very, very unlikely to be true. But that's true of most non-religious people as well. The religious beliefs are often more strange and more likely to be easily countered by fact, but in the wash, they are often not that big a deal. For example, I don't think Dennis Kucinich is any worse a candidate because he said he thinks he saw a UFO.
But, as I said before, my individual beliefs aren't really what I'm talking about here, but rather the general public's perception. There's a lot of poor decisions and prejudices that go itno how we select our candidates. It is likely that if Mitt Romney came out endorsing his religion's out-there beliefs, it is going to hurt the public's view of him. It may not be what we, personally, would agree with, but there you go. I don't think that this means that this should therefor be out of bounds.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Trying to sneak a little Godwin's law in there like sanitary napkins in the grocery list?
Not at all. I'm an atheist, remember. And I've had the Hitler/Stalin argument thrown at me before, so I don't see any reason why people wouldn't say it to or about an atheist presidential candidate.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom: probably not an atheist, but likely a Deist.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Not at all. I'm an atheist, remember. And I've had the Hitler/Stalin argument thrown at me before, so I don't see any reason why people wouldn't say it to or about an atheist presidential candidate.
It's not as if people don't routinely make wildly stupid claims about what certain Presidential candidates will do already. Atheists are nothing special, except in degree and in specific complaint.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
They are special inasmuch as we've never had an openly atheist president. Which is why I was curious.
Of course, I guess I could always try to run in 2016 and see firsthand.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Not at all. I'm an atheist, remember. And I've had the Hitler/Stalin argument thrown at me before, so I don't see any reason why people wouldn't say it to or about an atheist presidential candidate.
It's not as if people don't routinely make wildly stupid claims about what certain Presidential candidates will do already. Atheists are nothing special, except in degree and in specific complaint.
Exactly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For all the talking about God that Lincoln did, if he was an atheist, he was also a liar.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: For all the talking about God that Lincoln did, if he was an atheist, he was also a liar.
Well, a thing we have to remember is that these are presidents of a country that has a majority of Christians in it. Jefferson makes many public references to god and Christianity in his speeches, but in his private letters routinely harangues it.
I also forget the particular speech off the top of my head, but I remember reading about Lincoln being essentially forced by Congress to read a statement supporting a day of prayer (or something like that, I'll look for the specifics later tonight if anyone insists). And if you read the beginning of the speech, he essentially says he's saying it because Congress wants him to.
Not that I happen to know if Lincoln was an atheist, or particularly care if he was.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
kate: he might have had various faiths, over time. He did have significant mental problems, which might have influenced him religiously.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm pretty sure there have been atheist candidates, just probably not front-runners for the two major parties.
Is it possible Lincoln opposed the day of prayer because he felt it violated separation of church and state, and not because he felt it was wrong for people to pray?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Javert, having good reasons for lying, does not make one truthful.
Was the day of prayer, Thanksgiving, perhaps? Lots of God in that proclamation.
fugu, I am not sure what you are getting at?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
pooka: Certainly could have been that.
kmbboots: True. But it becomes understandable if we look at the context. Maybe not forgivable, depending on your opinion of lying, but certainly understandable.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The national day of prayer is in early winter, I believe. If it's the same one they're still doing.
But the idea that every mention of God made by any great man was only to appease the peanut gallery and against his own conscience is annoying. It's a bit like the "every great man was gay" and "every woman wishes she were a great man" theories.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know. If there is evidence, it seems more like "Many people in Spain during the Inquisition were secretly Jewish." or "Some black people used to pass as white people."
I don't think anyone is saying that all great people were paying lip service, but it is likely that some of them were.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What evidence do you have that Lincoln was an atheist? I think that (being "Honest Abe and all) he might have been being honest when he referred to God.
Not that this was your premise originally, but you do seem to be defending it.
edit to add: That was to Javert, but could be to MrSquicky as well. I think that without evidence to the contrary, it makes sense to believe that he was being honest. It is less like saying that "many people in the Inquisition were secretly Jews" than saying, "this particular person, who often talked about being Christian was secretly a Jew" which is okay if there is some evidence for that. If there isn't, it is just making stuff up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No friend of organized religion, and not a believer in any sort of personal god or anything supernatural, but not technically an atheist.
No, I think Jefferson was an atheist. If you don't believe in anything "supernatural," you certainly don't believe in a God. You can substitute "Nature" for his version of "Nature's God" everywhere it appears.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, what is often described as "supernatural" is of very little consequence to my theism anyway. So that "certainly" of yours is not true.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lincoln might have been an atheist at times, and been a Christian at times, and been a Deist at times, and many other things. His mental problems were probably of sorts that might make such religious conversions more likely. He could say things about God wholeheartedly and still have been for a good chunk of time an atheist.
He probably was about a Deist most of his life. He said several things to suggest he did not believe God spoke his will to anyone, never belonged to a particular church (though his wife and several close friends did), and is attributed with several quotations that speak out against Christianity in particular (though there is considerable debate about which came from Lincoln and which may have been fabricated).
There are also a good number of quotations and assertions about him being religious that are known to have been fabricated, notably including quite a bit of Holland's biography.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Though, I don't think that mental problems are necessarily connected to changes in faith (I think that perfectly sane people can learn new things or have doubts) I think that depression (for example) could easily hamper one's belief in a benevolent God.
I don't recall that Lincoln was particularly Christian, but his words seem to indicate a belief in a deity.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think hampering one's belief in a benevolent God sounds like being connected to changes in faith to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sure. But those changes could also happen without mental illness or depression. Hence the "necessarily".
In other words, I was basically agreeing, but adding a caveat.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, they could definitely occur without mental illness. All I was asserting was that crippling depression associated with losing one's loved ones, and possibly greater mental illness near the end, might well make religious changes much more likely.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Tom, I'm not sure what you mean by 'supernatural' here:
quote:If you don't believe in anything "supernatural," you certainly don't believe in a God.
If it's defined as something like 'outside the observable, rationally comprehensible laws of nature,' then I think you're fundamentally misunderstand Deism and eighteenth and nineteenth century natural theology; this was an entire school of thought dedicated to proving that the hand of God worked in scientifically verifiable ways and structured the universe and the course of history to achieve his purposes. Jefferson believed this. It doesn't mean that God intervene sin the universe; it does mean, though, that Jefferson and other deists (like John Toland or Franklin) believed that God was the ultimate cause of the creation, and humanity was of a different order than the rest of creation because God had ordained it so.
Fugu, I think you're overstating the influence of Lincoln's depression. He never really experienced a conversion of the evangelical sort. In his maturity, however, he was certainly not a deist; indeed, in his maturity he seems to have tended to a cultural, non-Christian Old Testament style Calvinism.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You shouldn't forget that Jefferson also read his Bible of his own volition um...religiously? Sorry couldn't think of a better word. He personally did not believe in any of the instances where men performed supernatural miracles via God's power, but he still believed in a God who set the universe in motion and expects us to figure it all out.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
MattB: what are you basing 'certainly not a deist' on?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Because his later writings indicate a theology in which God takes an active interest in the course of history.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Do you have an example?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:No friend of organized religion, and not a believer in any sort of personal god or anything supernatural, but not technically an atheist.
No, I think Jefferson was an atheist. If you don't believe in anything "supernatural," you certainly don't believe in a God. You can substitute "Nature" for his version of "Nature's God" everywhere it appears.
Yes you could make such a substitution. You could also substitute Dharma for "Nature's God" everywhere it appears but that doesn't prove Jefferson was a Buddhist.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Here is a good summary of Deism from Wikipedia:
quote: The concept of Deism covers a wide variety of positions on a wide variety of religious issues. Following Sir Leslie Stephen's English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, most commentators agree that two features constituted the core of Deism:
* The rejection of revealed religion — this was the critical aspect of Deism. * The belief that reason, not faith, leads us to certain basic religious truths — this was the positive or constructive aspect of Deism.
Deist authors advocated a combination of both critical and constructive elements in proportions and emphases that varied from author to author.
Critical elements of Deist thought included:
* Rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God. * Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries". * Rejection of the Genesis account of creation and the doctrine of original sin, along with all similar beliefs. * Rejection of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other religious beliefs.
Constructive elements of Deist thought included:
* God exists and created the universe. * God wants human beings to behave morally. * Human beings have souls that survive death; that is, there is an afterlife. * In the afterlife, God will reward moral behavior and punish immoral behavior. Although, others believe God wants humans to be moral and affect what they can in their mortal lives, and they will be rewarded in the same life.
Individual Deists varied in the set of critical and constructive elements for which they argued. Some Deists rejected miracles and prophecies but still considered themselves Christians because they believed in what they felt to be the pure, original form of Christianity — that is, Christianity as it existed before it was corrupted by additions of such superstitions as miracles, prophecies, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Some Deists rejected the claim of Jesus' divinity but continued to hold him in high regard as a moral teacher (see, e.g., Thomas Jefferson's famous Jefferson Bible). Other, more radical Deists rejected Christianity altogether and expressed hostility toward Christianity, which they regarded as pure superstition. In return, Christian writers often charged radical Deists with atheism.
So quite a wide range of views. Sometimes I rather wish they didn't use capital G, "God" for the god of Deism. Without revelation, without faith, and rejection of those listed elements these people really would not be classified as Christians today (most would not quite be atheist as they are defined today either...although they can still be inspiring). Certainly not for those still arguing that Mormons are not Christians for some trivial rejection of the Trinity Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Exactly.
Oh, don't worry Javert. As atheists grow more numerous and atheism more popular, the tables will begin to shift in proportion.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
What does it say about religion in our country when people are or are not electable based on what they believe, or feel that they have to pretend to believe something in order to get into or stay in office?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That it's an important and controversial issue for large segments of the population.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What evidence do you have that Lincoln was an atheist? I think that (being "Honest Abe and all) he might have been being honest when he referred to God.
Not that this was your premise originally, but you do seem to be defending it.
edit to add: That was to Javert, but could be to MrSquicky as well. I think that without evidence to the contrary, it makes sense to believe that he was being honest. It is less like saying that "many people in the Inquisition were secretly Jews" than saying, "this particular person, who often talked about being Christian was secretly a Jew" which is okay if there is some evidence for that. If there isn't, it is just making stuff up.
I have no particular evidence that he was an atheist. I've seen people argue it and heard a few things, but if I wanted to make that argument I would have to do some serious research.
But I think it's completely possible that he was an atheist and still said the things he said. Maybe not. Doesn't make a particular difference to me either way. Would just be something interesting to learn.
BB: Jefferson redacted the Bible to, essentially, the life and teachings of Jesus. No miracles, nothing supernatural, nothing godly. These actions don't seem to be necessarily out of character for an atheist.
Though I still think Jefferson was probably a deist, which is really as far as you could go during his time and still be intellectually honest.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Exactly.
Oh, don't worry Javert. As atheists grow more numerous and atheism more popular, the tables will begin to shift in proportion.
Here's hoping we do become more numerous and popular, and are much more kind to the minorities.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I still say we limit the Prez to one term, or do without altogether. But that's just me.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
I just read the article. Hitchens cracks me up, every time. It works because he's British, I think. Anyhow, I'm glad he's out there.
fugu: The Second Inaugural. You may argue the God stuff in there is merely literary flourish, but he's alluding to a pretty well developed Calvinist theology of history, which had by his time fallen largely out of favor. But he's in many ways the intellectual heir to Jonathan Edwards, I think.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As long as he wasn't the musical heir to Jonathan Edwards and his wife Darlene!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You could also substitute Dharma for "Nature's God" everywhere it appears but that doesn't prove Jefferson was a Buddhist.
See, I believe that Jefferson was only a "Deist" because at that time there was no other competing theory for things like abiogenesis. When you looked at things like the complexity of life in the late 1700s, you could see how they worked but not -- unless you were a really extraordinary genius -- figure out why they would work without a creator of some sort. He was an atheist who believed in a godlike mechanism because no alternative mechanism had been posited at that point; we can call these people Deists, if we must, but they were really just atheists with insufficient information.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I just read the article. Hitchens cracks me up, every time. It works because he's British, I think. Anyhow, I'm glad he's out there.
I'm baffled as to why you're glad he's "out there."
I don't think we should be glad that anyone is so irrational.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Tom,
By that same logic, he was clearly would have been Mormon if that had been an option at the time.
We can make up whatever stories we what about Jefferson, but it doesn't make them true.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
MattB: even Presidents who wrote their own speeches regularly alluded to beliefs they did not believe in with public speeches. Washington and Jefferson, for instance, particularly the latter.
Notice in particular that he never says that God has necessarily granted the North anything, and also that he constructs the entire latter part of the speech as a hypothetical. He dances around the exact properties of God very deftly.
Lincoln was a prolific private writer. Do you have an example from his private or semi-private writings?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Tom,
By that same logic, he was clearly would have been Mormon if that had been an option at the time.
We can make up whatever stories we what about Jefferson, but it doesn't make them true.
That doesn't make sense at all. Had he been looking for some new brand of Christianity you could argue he would have gone LDS.
There is evidence that Jefferson was looking for a way to rationally understand the world without any supernatural events or magic in it. He couldn't see how the world would exist without an initial creator.
Since we now have theories that don't require the supernatural or magic to understand the universe, it is reasonable to think he would have taken them. Maybe he wouldn't have, but it seems much more likely than the possibility of him becoming a Mormon.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Tom,
By that same logic, he was clearly would have been Mormon if that had been an option at the time.
We can make up whatever stories we what about Jefferson, but it doesn't make them true.
That doesn't make sense at all. Had he been looking for some new brand of Christianity you could argue he would have gone LDS.
There is evidence that Jefferson was looking for a way to rationally understand the world without any supernatural events or magic in it. He couldn't see how the world would exist without an initial creator.
Since we now have theories that don't require the supernatural or magic to understand the universe, it is reasonable to think he would have taken them. Maybe he wouldn't have, but it seems much more likely than the possibility of him becoming a Mormon.
As silly as it is to suppose we know what Jefferson was thinking, here goes!
You are assuming that Jefferson's only qualms with Christianity were super natural events. For all we know he had that issues with the fact that nobody nowadays was parting the Red Sea or rising from the dead and hence he came to believe those events were all myths spliced with the true moral teachings of Jesus. Perhaps he felt the Christianity he saw around him bore little resemblance to the ideal Christianity he read about in the Bible.
I've met plenty of people who read Buddhist writings, Christian writings, Muslim writings, and are convinced none of them are the correct religion, but they scour the writings for fragments of truth. I've suggested well maybe they are all wrong and there is no God and they are utterly unconvinced that there is no God, and they are perfectly knowledgeable about current theories about the origins of the earth/universe.
I think you are making a reasonable argument that if a modern day scientists could sit down with Jefferson and explain many of the breakthroughs we have made today he easily could have come to the conclusion that his world does not need a God to make sense, but that does not mean Jefferson was an atheist who just couldn't know it yet.
It WOULD be akin to saying that if Jefferson had just once seen an incident of miraculous healing at a Mormon church he would have been converted on the spot as his only beef with Christianity was inability to believe in supernatural things.
Or if he had encountered Buddhism which also does not require a God/Creator that he would have embraced it.
I by no means think Jefferson was a champion of the faith, but having reservations about siding with any particular faith, and talking about the God of nature does not necessarily mean atheism.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I don't think it is useful to attach famous names to our favorite causes.
Do you think it never occurred to anyone before Jefferson's time that there might be another explanation besides Genesis? Do you think that Jefferson was capable of conceiving a nation without kings but incapable of imagining a world without God?
I think it's the highest form of arrogance to imagine that Jefferson didn't actually mean what he said and if only he had known what you know, then he would definitely agree with you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think it's the highest form of arrogance to imagine that Jefferson didn't actually mean what he said and if only he had known what you know, then he would definitely agree with you.
Kat thinks I'm arrogant. Well, at least it's HIGH arrogance, and not that low, spam-sucking, trailer-trash arrogance...
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I don't think it is useful to attach famous names to our favorite causes.
Do you think it never occurred to anyone before Jefferson's time that there might be another explanation besides Genesis? Do you think that Jefferson was capable of conceiving a nation without kings but incapable of imagining a world without God?
I want to be clear on two things. One: this is only my opinion from what I've read of Jefferson, so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Two: I really don't care if Jefferson was or would have been an atheist or not. It doesn't change my position at all, but I think it would be interesting.
That being said, I was talking about being intellectually honest, not about imagination. You could certainly imagine a world without god even if you didn't have any theories that helped it make sense. But without the theories to back it up, it becomes less intellectually honest to go that extra step.
quote:I think it's the highest form of arrogance to imagine that Jefferson didn't actually mean what he said and if only he had known what you know, then he would definitely agree with you.
This is a red herring.
Who here doesn't think that their beliefs, opinions, ideas and understandings are the correct ones? If you thought they were wrong, you'd change your mind.
That being said, if you believe you're right, OF COURSE you believe that if you could just get someone else to understand your opinion that they'd agree with you.
Are you telling me that if you could just sit someone down and talk to them about LDS and get them to understand your position, you think they wouldn't believe you?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Are you telling me that if you could just sit someone down and talk to them about LDS and get them to understand your position, you think they wouldn't believe you?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. They could intellectually understand perfectly and may or may not believe. Conversion comes from the spirit, faith is a gift of the spirit, and no matter how much I talk, I can't hand over a testimony to someone simply because I burn with mine.
Believe me, I've tried. It doesn't work.
Well, sometimes, but when it does, it isn't because of me.
It is possible for someone to understand and still disagree.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you think it never occurred to anyone before Jefferson's time that there might be another explanation besides Genesis? Do you think that Jefferson was capable of conceiving a nation without kings but incapable of imagining a world without God?
It's not that he couldn't imagine a world without God. It's that, prior to the 1800s, there was no viable scientific rationale for a world without God. Jefferson had a fairly precise mind; he was a tinkerer and a theorist and an avid reader of what we'd consider science fiction today. He even had a passing familiarity with Eastern religions, although I never saw anything in his writing to indicate that he'd studied their actual beliefs beyond acknowledging their practice. Unlike Washington, who believed that religion was necessary not just to explain our existence but also to provide a unified national morality, Jefferson believed -- despite what he wrote in the Declaration -- that morality was largely a social construct. His "Deist" God was far more hands-off than Washington's, and possibly even Lincoln's (although, as has been pointed out, the extent of Lincoln's belief is pretty questionable). In the 1700s, no matter how imaginative you were, you did not have a viable materialistic replacement for a supernatural Creation; it was one of the Holy Grails of the Enlightenment.
There's nothing in anything Jefferson ever wrote that implies he would have believed in a supernatural Creator for more than a few seconds after his first encounter with a modern biologist. He believed there was a hands-off, invisible, unknowable God because his was, quite explicitly, a "God of the Gaps;" there was no other explanation, so something must have done it -- and it was convenient to call that thing God. His own struggles with "redacting" the Bible are, to every atheist born Christian to whom I've ever spoken, nearly identical to the well-read atheist's conversion away from faith.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Men have adapted before to new information and you don't know how he would have adapted to this information. It isn't as if every person who believed in a God of the gaps let go of that beleif when the gaps were filled.
It is wistful speculation to imagine that he would have reacted in the way you would have.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
quote:Are you telling me that if you could just sit someone down and talk to them about LDS and get them to understand your position, you think they wouldn't believe you?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. They could intellectually understand perfectly and may or may not believe. Conversion comes from the spirit, faith is a gift of the spirit, and no matter how much I talk, I can't hand over a testimony to someone simply because I burn with mine.
Believe me, I've tried. It doesn't work.
Well, that's where we differ. The things I believe don't come from faith, and thus being less personal I think it would be easier to convince someone if I got them to understand.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It isn't as if every person who believed in a God of the gaps let go of that beleif when the gaps were filled.
No. Not everyone is that rational. I'm pretty sure Jefferson was, though.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
More arrogance and speculation. It's entertaining but not enlightening.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's arrogant to believe that someone else is intelligent?
------
Look, seriously, I don't think George Washington -- who wrote often of the value of religion in his life and in the development of the country -- would meet Charles Darwin and go "Oh, Lord! I must forsake you!"
But I think it's pretty clear from everything that Jefferson ever wrote that the news that he didn't require a creator would come as an enormous intellectual relief to him. He clearly had difficulty with the concept of an absentee God.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Is there irony in being called arrogant by someone who claims to know the creator of the universe?
(Perhaps that's a tasteless joke. If it is, I will remove it. But I happen to think that we're all just relatively certain of our current understandings, and none of us is terribly arrogant for doing so.)
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It WOULD be akin to saying that if Jefferson had just once seen an incident of miraculous healing at a Mormon church he would have been converted on the spot as his only beef with Christianity was inability to believe in supernatural things.
Um, I don't know many people who wouldn't change their minds about god on the spot if they were presented with irrefutable visual evidence. Problem is that's never happened.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Um, I don't know many people who wouldn't change their minds about god on the spot if they were presented with irrefutable visual evidence.
That's hardly irrefutable visual evidence. Just because someone heals you doesn't mean everything they say about how and why they did it is true.
quote:Problem is that's never happened.
To you.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Come on, JT - that isn't fair. It isn't as if Tom has the slightest inclination to move either.
As for the second, there are a hundred stories of it happening and of people talking themselves out of it and going back to their favorite beliefs anyway. You don't believe the stories, probably because you don't believe it could actually happen. That's a circle, and it doesn't prove anything.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Edit: Thought better of it. I can't imagine that the discussion that would follow would be worth the time I'd put into it.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm a little fuzzy on your pronouns there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: That's why I used the word 'irrefutable'.
You used "irrefutable" to refer to a specific hypothetical to which it did not apply.
quote: It's never happened to either of you, either, and you know it.
I didn't say it had happened to me. But I believe it has happened to other people. You believe it hasn't.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Come on, JT - that isn't fair. It isn't as if Tom has the slightest inclination to move either.
How would you know if Tom would move his position? Just because you wouldn't change yours doesn't mean you should assume others are the same.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
There's no evidence for it. I suppose I could make something up and claim it as truth, but I'd rather not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, it IS unlikely that I'll suddenly decide that Thomas Jefferson was a Mormon at heart simply because Kat has suggested it (facetiously) as a possibility. But if she could present actual evidence of that assertion on par with the evidence presented of Jefferson's atheism, it's likely that I would look twice at my own position.
As it stands, she's only said "it's arrogant of you to assume that you know what someone who's dead was thinking." Since my arrogance doesn't impact the likelihood of my correctness, though, her claim's not relevant to the issue. Given the volume of Jefferson's writing on this very subject, I don't think there's really much room for speculation; like I've said, I don't think any well-read, ex-Christian atheist in America would fail to recognize in his words their own thoughts, and Jefferson's own defense of divinity is explicitly a "well, God has to exist to explain this..." sort of thing. There's clearly no way to be sure, but I think there's considerably a stronger case to be made for Jefferson's atheism than, say, for Lincoln's bisexuality.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Fortunately for your argument, he's dead and can't dispute the results of your hypothetical experiment that comes up all warm and fuzzy for you.
Was it really hypothetical, though? I should ask Matt. It's hardly concievable that NOT believing in God and trusting that an explanation would come forth for what had yet to be explained had never occurred to anyone by Jefferson's day.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It WOULD be akin to saying that if Jefferson had just once seen an incident of miraculous healing at a Mormon church he would have been converted on the spot as his only beef with Christianity was inability to believe in supernatural things.
Um, I don't know many people who wouldn't change their minds about god on the spot if they were presented with irrefutable visual evidence. Problem is that's never happened.
Dag got what I was going after. I KNOW of Mormons who converted because of super natural events that defy explanation and later left the faith. You'd be surprised how easily a miracle becomes old news.
I just don't think it's completely accurate to say that Jefferson needed only a single rational explanation for a Godless universe and that he would have embraced atheism and started running with it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It WOULD be akin to saying that if Jefferson had just once seen an incident of miraculous healing at a Mormon church he would have been converted on the spot as his only beef with Christianity was inability to believe in supernatural things.
Um, I don't know many people who wouldn't change their minds about god on the spot if they were presented with irrefutable visual evidence. Problem is that's never happened.
Dag got what I was going after. I KNOW of Mormons who converted because of super natural events that defy explanation and later left the faith. You'd be surprised how easily a miracle becomes old news.
Well then, perhaps it wasn't irrefutable?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Blackblade made the original hypothetical. It certainly seemed that JT was saying that "an incident of miraculous healing at a Mormon church" would be "irrefutable visual evidence." If he wasn't, I'm not sure how his point related to Blackblade's.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The only pre-Enlightenment atheist I know of -- as opposed to some version of a "God of the Gaps" deist -- is Epicurus, and even he spent a lot of time talking about gods. He just defined the "gods" in such a way that they were non-sentient natural forces. The term "atheist" is very old, but the modern form of atheism -- in which no supernatural forces are believed to have ever been necessary -- is as far as I know indeed very modern.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I must say that the choice of Jefferson is a curious one. Javert Hugo might have a case with a different historical figure, but Jefferson? To bring it back to the OP, there is a very good reason why Hitchens wrote a very positive biography of Jefferson, we have a very good idea of his thought process and he would be quite hostile to most religion today as shown by his own words.
I was saying that if such a healing happened in a manner that it appeared to be 'irrefutable'*, then I would be surprised if any rational person would refuse to reconsider whether or not god exists**.
*Meaning that god didn't 'heal' back pain, or a stomachache. I'm talking about Wolverine style healing; a closing up of a bloody gash right before your eyes that leaves the skin pink and smooth afterwards. That, I would consider 'irrefutable'. Since BB didn't elaborate on what kind of healing we could expect in his hypothetical, I clarified before responding. Unlike Dag, I can't know what everyone is thinking when they post.
**Since most atheists I know consider the utter lack of hard evidence as a major reason to not believe in god, it seems like finally, for once, providing some might do the trick. Maybe not, though. It's just a 'what if'.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:The only pre-Enlightenment atheist I know of -- as opposed to some version of a "God of the Gaps" deist -- is Epicurus, and even he spent a lot of time talking about gods. He just defined the "gods" in such a way that they were non-sentient natural forces. The term "atheist" is very old, but the modern form of atheism -- in which no supernatural forces are believed to have ever been necessary -- is as far as I know indeed very modern.
This is what I can hardly believe. Thousands of years of human history and only one atheist? Really?
I even have stirrings in the back of my mind of counter examples and where I was when I read about them, but they weren't permanently filed away in any accessible place because it was in passing in the pursuit of another subject. Maybe I'll find them later.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Atheism definitely existed in Jefferson's day (and by that name). Washington at one point makes specific reference to atheism as being an acceptable property for people he hires.
edit: and it seems to be a meaning of someone who does not believe in God. He lists a few religions that are acceptable (all the major ones, I think), then says something like "or even an Atheist".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Meaning that god didn't 'heal' back pain, or a stomachache. I'm talking about Wolverine style healing; a closing up of a bloody gash right before your eyes that leaves the skin pink and smooth afterwards. That, I would consider 'irrefutable'.
And my original point stands: "That's hardly irrefutable visual evidence. Just because someone heals you doesn't mean everything they say about how and why they did it is true."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Unlike Dag, I can't know what everyone is thinking when they post.
True. For example, you seem to think that thought I knew what BB was thinking.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The trouble is saying that one's belief is the necessary result of mental rigor, be it Mormonism or Atheism, in my opinion. Everyone will one day know that Jesus is the Lord, but only those who have believed on him will be made sinless. No one will be compelled, by the burden of evidence, to be saved.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, c'mon atheists out there. Would you really believe 'God did it' if a priest laid hands on an injured person, prayed for healing, and then the injured party was healed Wolverine style? Or would you instead believe, "Coincidence coupled with some other rational explanation?"
Despite this example singling out atheists, my point is that to people as a whole, nothing is ever irrefutable. There are people out there who believe the Earth is flat. Nothing is ever irrefutable.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Meaning that god didn't 'heal' back pain, or a stomachache. I'm talking about Wolverine style healing; a closing up of a bloody gash right before your eyes that leaves the skin pink and smooth afterwards. That, I would consider 'irrefutable'.
And my original point stands: "That's hardly irrefutable visual evidence. Just because someone heals you doesn't mean everything they say about how and why they did it is true."
Yay! Definition time!
Enjoy talking to the brick wall -- peace out.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:Notice in particular that he never says that God has necessarily granted the North anything,
Of course. That's the point, and it's why he's closer to Edwards than to the creeping Arminianism of early nineteenth century evangelicalism. The theological portrait he paints of the world is quite clear, and distinct from the most-favored-nation status of progressive American Protestantism.
quote:He dances around the exact properties of God very deftly.
Not really. He's talking in language theologians of the period understood clearly. God's providence, his sovereignty over history, was his paramount attribute to old line Calvinists, and Lincoln sounds here like one of them. This is partly because he was steeped in the Bible; he quotes Matthew early on in the address and closes the second to last paragraph with that resonant phrase from Psalms: "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
Furthermore, the Second Inaugural is clearly an evolution in his theological views. For instance, early in his presidency, he sounded like a fairly typical American of his time:
quote:Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.(Collected Works, 4:270–71)
After the second battle of Bull Run in 1862, however, he wrote this, titled, "A Meditation on Divine Will," and which, his secretary John Hay recalls, was kept private.
quote:The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God can not be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party—and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say this is probably true—that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere quiet power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds. (CW, 5:403–4)
This is the sort of reasoning that pervades the Second Inaugural, and it's the sort of theological reasoning - an unwillingness to claim God's favor, an acknowledgment of human flaws and a sort of collective morality, and an ultimate certainty in God's sovereignty - that characterizes the Edwardsian school of American theology that had been dying out since 1802.
Anyhow, I'm not so sure Lincoln was a Christian, and he certainly never joined a church. But he seems to me to have had a deep, deep sense of providence. Some historians call him a post-Protestant, like Melville. That might fit, I suppose.
Scott - I certainly don't agree with Hitchens, but I find this new atheist movement (of which he is certainly the most eloquent member) interesting, so I read them. Hitchens's book is riddled with logical fallacies, but he's mightily entertaining, I think. I'm not sure why we should find him threatening.
Tom - Actually, the Deist God was explicitly not a God of the gaps, which is a nineteenth century phrase of the natural theologians, who would have recoiled at the accusation of deism. The deists were constructive theologians; they did not believe they were struggling to explain the world but approached it with confidence in reason. Jefferson (and other deists like Franklin) found deism useful intellectually and politically in its own right, not merely as a crutch.
Anyhow, the argument you're making has been made before, but I find it's generally more useful to approach historical figures in their own context.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Heh, c'mon atheists out there. Would you really believe 'God did it' if a priest laid hands on an injured person, prayed for healing, and then the injured party was healed Wolverine style? Or would you instead believe, "Coincidence coupled with some other rational explanation?"
My honest answer?
Maybe.
If I saw it in person, and we had a doctor to indicate that both the person was really injured in the first place and then that the person was really healed...that would definitely give me pause.
If it was repeatable, that would put me well on the way to becoming a believer.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Heh, c'mon atheists out there. Would you really believe 'God did it' if a priest laid hands on an injured person, prayed for healing, and then the injured party was healed Wolverine style? Or would you instead believe, "Coincidence coupled with some other rational explanation?"
Screw coincidence, I'd start investigate whatever biotechnology companies that the Church is invested in and start *buying stock*
(Assuming you know, I could verify that it really happened as I saw it)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Meaning that god didn't 'heal' back pain, or a stomachache. I'm talking about Wolverine style healing; a closing up of a bloody gash right before your eyes that leaves the skin pink and smooth afterwards. That, I would consider 'irrefutable'.
And my original point stands: "That's hardly irrefutable visual evidence. Just because someone heals you doesn't mean everything they say about how and why they did it is true."
Yay! Definition time!
Enjoy talking to the brick wall -- peace out.
Wow. What the **** is wrong with you today?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:He was an atheist who believed in a godlike mechanism because no alternative mechanism had been posited at that point; we can call these people Deists, if we must, but they were really just atheists with insufficient information.
On that note, perhaps we should call Tom Davidson a theist because, even though he explicitly says he doesn't believe in God, he nevertheless thinks like many of us believers in God do and so we can conclude he would believe in God if he had sufficient information.
---
Aside from that, though... I think religion is a valid thing to look at when selecting a President. However, I think it's pretty clear that wise leaders have come from almost any religion, so I don't think you could ever say Romney would make a poor President just because he is Mormon. Instead you have to look at how he approaches his religious views and applies them to his political life and judgement. Jefferson was a great choice for president partially because he explicitly was open to religious viewpoints other than his own. Whether he was atheist or theist, he was not the sort that would oppress people just to advocate his religion. Is Romney the sort that would do so?
Frankly, if Romney is the sort that will heavily push religious viewpoints through political means, I don't want him as President whether he is Mormon or Christian or Atheist or whatever. I see no reason to believe that is the case, though.
[ November 27, 2007, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, Lincoln's Second Inaugural is one of the main reasons I find him a kindred spirit. Now maybe all the references to providence were inserted by his handlers, but I don't think so.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Mucus and Javert:
Exactly! Faith doesn't come from miracles - faith precedes the miracles.
Someone with no faith who saw a miracle generally will labor to make the event fit the beliefs in his/her head.
The people of Nephi saw the miracle of the sun never going down on the night the Savior was born, but within their lifetimes it had all fallen apart anyway. Miracles don't create true faith - faith and people are more complex than that.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:He was an atheist who believed in a godlike mechanism because no alternative mechanism had been posited at that point; we can call these people Deists, if we must, but they were really just atheists with insufficient information.
On that note, perhaps we should call Tom Davidson a theist because, even though he explicitly says he doesn't believe in God, he nevertheless thinks like many of us believers in God do and so we can conclude he would believe in God if he had sufficient information.
Yes. Because that's exactly what Tom is arguing....... Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Mucus and Javert:
Exactly! Faith doesn't come from miracles - faith precedes the miracles.
Someone with no faith who saw a miracle generally will labor to make the event fit the beliefs in his/her head.
The people of Nephi saw the miracle of the sun never going down on the night the Savior was born, but within their lifetimes it had all fallen apart anyway. Miracles don't create true faith - faith and people are more complex than that.
I love this argument.
'To believe it, you have to believe it!'
And around the circle we go.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I'm pretty sure Lincoln was a Christian at some point, or at least strongly inclined to the idea. The statement you've provided is a much nicer indication of a belief in an active god (I suspect that if Lincoln was a deist, it was earlier in life).
By dancing around, I was referring to phrases along the lines of "if we suppose", which permeate the speech. Most of the references to any active property of God in the second inaugural are approached hypothetically, not as a statement of belief.
Of course, this sort of strongly evolving belief is exactly the point I made earlier, about Lincoln's beliefs probably having changed significantly and at several times over the course of his life.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It's more of an explanation as to why relying on miracles for faith is a bad idea.
That's a poor recap of what I said. More like "If you didn't believe before the miracle, you won't believe after."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: It's more of an explanation as to why relying on miracles for faith is a bad idea.
That's a poor recap of what I said. More like "If you didn't believe before the miracle, you won't believe after."
How is that not "to believe, you have to believe"?
If a miracle is a miracle, it should be miraculous enough that I don't have to assume it's true before I see it.
If you go around assuming everything is true before you have evidence, then you end up believing many many silly things.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Someone with no faith who saw a miracle generally will labor to make the event fit the beliefs in his/her head.
The people of Nephi saw the miracle of the sun never going down on the night the Savior was born, but within their lifetimes it had all fallen apart anyway. Miracles don't create true faith - faith and people are more complex than that.
Give me a break! The whole point of my joke was that "wolverine"-style healing is a very poor excuse for a miracle. We can fake it with special effects and I would not be particularly surprised if a biotechnology company managed to do it in oh, twenty years.
Your hypothetical is not a proof that miracles do not create faith. If anything, its proof that people are very crummy at manufacturing miracles.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
People pretty much believe what they decide to believe. That decision is influenced by the evidence they observe, but believing (or disbelieving) anything is still a decision.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm saying that faith and miracles shouldn't be connected, and relying on miracles to produce faith won't work.
??What hypothetical?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: People pretty much believe what they decide to believe. That decision is influenced by the evidence they observe, but believing (or disbelieving) anything is still a decision.
I disagree. I think you can decide on the level of evidence you're willing to accept. But belief itself isn't a decision. I couldn't just force myself to believe something. (Which is one of the reasons Pascal's Wager fails.)
At least not in the same way that deciding to get up and get another cup of coffee is a decision.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:People pretty much believe what they decide to believe. That decision is influenced by the evidence they observe, but believing (or disbelieving) anything is still a decision.
I disagree partially. I don't think you can simply decide to believe something - I don't think you can really believe in something you know is false, for instance.
I think your beliefs are determined by your intuition or subjective judgement (what seems true to you). And that judgement is influenced by evidence and logic, but isn't solely determined by it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I'm saying that faith and miracles shouldn't be connected, and relying on miracles to produce faith won't work.
I guess I may be saying that they should be.
If you lack the evidence that miracles would provide then having faith is irrational. IMHO.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I disagree with your contention that miracles are the only acceptable evidence.
quote:I guess I may be saying that they should be.
It would be nice (easier, anyway), but lots of things should be that are not.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I'm saying that faith and miracles shouldn't be connected, and relying on miracles to produce faith won't work.
I guess I may be saying that they should be.
If you lack the evidence that miracles would provide then having faith is irrational. IMHO.
That kind of defeats the whole purpose of faith, I think.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:At least not in the same way that deciding to get up and get another cup of coffee is a decision.
No, it's more like the way deciding to love somebody or not is a decision.
They're both ongoing decisions.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I disagree with your contention that miracles are the only acceptable evidence.
quote:I guess I may be saying that they should be.
It would be nice (easier, anyway), but lots of things should be that are not.
Then substitute "anything that is attributed to god that can effect objective reality" for "miracles".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I'm saying that faith and miracles shouldn't be connected, and relying on miracles to produce faith won't work.
??What hypothetical?
And I'm saying your logic is flawed since you cited my response to Rakeesh's hypothetical as part of it.
My response to Rakeesh's hypothetical is not evidence that faith and miracles are not connected. It is just evidence that Rakeesh is really bad at coming up with miracles, as are many people as is readily apparent.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I'm saying that faith and miracles shouldn't be connected, and relying on miracles to produce faith won't work.
I guess I may be saying that they should be.
If you lack the evidence that miracles would provide then having faith is irrational. IMHO.
That kind of defeats the whole purpose of faith, I think.
-pH
Correct. Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Then substitute "anything that is attributed to god that can effect objective reality" for "miracles".
Yes, I'm aware of what a miracle is. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What kind of evidence do you think is provided by miracles?
My evidence for my belief in God has very little to do with the miracles I've seen (or think I've seen, when looked at from a different point of view).
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
quote:Then substitute "anything that is attributed to god that can effect objective reality" for "miracles".
Yes, I'm aware of what a miracle is.
I know you know. I meant that that would be what I would consider acceptable evidence. I'm sure we disagree.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't think you can really believe in something you know is false, for instance.
Yes, in order to believe something, you can't continue to believe that it's false.
As far as tautologies go, that's a pretty straightforward one.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think a lot of things are miracles like gravity, human speech and how many babies are relatively normal considering how much can go wrong.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I disagree with your contention that miracles are the only acceptable evidence.
quote:I meant that that would be what I would consider acceptable evidence.
Yes, it seems we do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"anything that is attributed to god that can effect objective reality"
I don't normally point out typos, but this one struck me as profound, since the statement as written means "anything that is attributed to god that can make or bring about objective reality."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
What's the proper word, Dag? Affect? I never get those right.
Kat: Part of my point is, what DO you consider acceptable evidence?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
It's like asking any other candidate with Christian beliefs if he/she really believes that the tomb preportedly to be the tomb of Jesus is the ACTUAL tomb.
I'd say it is more like asking a candidate if they believe in young earth six day creationism. Sorry, but the wrong answer to that question should disqualify you from the presidency.
Edited to add: not in a Constitutional sense, of course.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What's the proper word, Dag? Affect? I never get those right.
"Affect" as a verb means to "influence or alter." It could be paraphrased as "having an effect on something."
The big confusion with affect/effect is that both can be used as a noun and a verb. The verb form of affect is much more commonly used than its noun form. The noun form of effect is much more commonly used than its verb form.
To go back to your original use, I would say that God can affect objective reality because he effects it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Affect can also mean mood. I was trying to parse that for a minute.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If a miracle is a miracle, it should be miraculous enough that I don't have to assume it's true before I see it.
Ummm...why should this be so? Aside from reaffirming your position, that is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The deists were constructive theologians; they did not believe they were struggling to explain the world but approached it with confidence in reason. Jefferson (and other deists like Franklin) found deism useful intellectually and politically in its own right, not merely as a crutch.
Which is actually explicitly why I say that Jefferson was not a deist. With the exception of his writing in the Declaration, which may have been partially Paine's in the first place, we don't have much evidence of any persistent belief on Jefferson's part of the value of the supernatural. I have not claimed that Washington or Franklin were atheists, you'll notice; in fact, I've said that Washington pretty clearly wasn't. Jefferson, however, does not appear to share their belief in a sentient Creator.
----------
Kat, I think the reason it's so hard to think of pre-Darwinian atheists is that Occam was right. Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Nah, I think there are a dozen other more plausible reasons.
quote:Kat: Part of my point is, what DO you consider acceptable evidence?
It seems like you're asking me why I believe what I believe, which is an incredibly personal subject for me. I don't feel comfortable sharing it in this venue.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
At the risk of going completely off topic, I wonder how often "correlation does not equal causation" is actually being used to combat Occam's razor.
Though I guess I could try and tie it back to the matter of miracles and whether they cause faith or not. It is an important tenet of Mormonism that faith precedes miracle, and that people who are "sign-seekers" and look for miracles are spiritually corrupt. It is important because we do believe God continues to perform miracles.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Nah, I think there are a dozen other more plausible reasons.
quote:Kat: Part of my point is, what DO you consider acceptable evidence?
It seems like you're asking me why I believe what I believe, which is an incredibly personal subject for me. I don't feel comfortable sharing it in this venue.
In that case, what kind of evidence is your evidence?
If you can't say that without revealing your personal stuff, I understand.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:If a miracle is a miracle, it should be miraculous enough that I don't have to assume it's true before I see it.
Ummm...why should this be so? Aside from reaffirming your position, that is.
Implicit in the definition of a miracle is being unable to explain it away using natural understanding.
What about something like that do I have to believe in beforehand?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Implicit in the definition of a miracle is being unable to explain it away using natural understanding.
Yes, well in the supposedly crappy example miracle I gave, you couldn't explain it away using natural understanding. You just said, "There must be a non-miraculous explanation for this-I just don't know it yet."
Your perspective renders impossible any miracles to begin with. It's hardly a point in your favor therefore that you wouldn't believe in a miracle.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Nah, I think there are a dozen other more plausible reasons.
You can? You can think of a reason for the existence of the universe that does not require modern physics to explain that is simpler than and as accurate as "someone did it?"
The only other one I can think of that's of equivalent simplicity is "it has always been," which is taken by another religion.
Nowadays, the gulf is small enough that we can say "we aren't completely sure how this happened, but that's okay." Three hundred years ago, that gulf was big -- and it would have taken a truly exceptional mind not to fill it with a god of some kind.
quote:It is an important tenet of Mormonism that faith precedes miracle, and that people who are "sign-seekers" and look for miracles are spiritually corrupt.
This is, in my opinion, at least partly because it is possible to talk yourself into belief where disbelief does not exist.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Yes, well in the supposedly crappy example miracle I gave, you couldn't explain it away using natural understanding.
It was close enough to things that are possible, and things that can be simulated, that it wasn't very miraculous.
Miracles that would be much more interesting: * Take me on a flight through space without any mechanical protection from the vacuum and other hazards of space. Let me note features of planets and moons that I am not familiar with but which I could verify the existence of by referring to astronomical texts later.
* Have me become instantaneously fluent in a language to which I've had no exposure.
* Regrow an amputated limb
* Correct, with no medical assistance, a severe birth defect such as a very bad case of spina bifida.
* Separate, with no medical assistance, conjoined twins.
The last few are particularly interesting because they would fit with God's normal pattern of healing people, but would do it in a much less ambiguous way than he usually gets credit for.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Yes, well in the supposedly crappy example miracle I gave, you couldn't explain it away using natural understanding.
It was close enough to things that are possible, and things that can be simulated, that it wasn't very miraculous.
I see it Wednesdays on Heroes and on Fridays on Stargate Atlantis Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It was close enough to things that are possible, and things that can be simulated, that it wasn't very miraculous.
Well, it's not really. People's wounds don't just press themselves together and heal themselves up-except on television. Implicit in my example was that you are watching it with your own eyes. That is never seen, and cannot be simulated by special effects.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ah, well, that gets into the old question of whether God as viewed by Mormons is actually supernatural. There was a prominent Mormon scholar, Sterling McMurrin, who argued that God is not supernatural, and that all his miracles would eventually be explicable. I don't hold McMurrin in very high regard, but I've run into views that imply something similar in many a faithful Mormon. If so, I'm afraid I'm a bit of a heretic, since I do find God to be supernatural.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Implicit in the definition of a miracle is being unable to explain it away using natural understanding.
That might be implicit in your definition of a miracle, but it sure isn't in mine.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It was close enough to things that are possible, and things that can be simulated, that it wasn't very miraculous.
Well, it's not really. People's wounds don't just press themselves together and heal themselves up-except on television. Implicit in my example was that you are watching it with your own eyes. That is never seen, and cannot be simulated by special effects.
I did say "close enough" and many "miraculous" phenomena which can be observed in a relatively small area can be simulated by illusionists. So your miracle might seem miraculous depending on the scope and presentation, but a more convincing miracle would be one that could not conceivably faked.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: People's wounds don't just press themselves together and heal themselves up-except on television. Implicit in my example was that you are watching it with your own eyes.
What do you watch TV with, your feet? 1080p must be so lost on you Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:a more convincing miracle would be one that could not conceivably faked.
A lot of illusionist tricks are inconceivable to a large portion of the audience. Until you know the trick.
Just because we can't imagine any possible way that it was faked does not mean we'll believe that it wasn't. If we want to believe that it had to have been faked, that's what we'll believe.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:A lot of illusionist tricks are inconceivable to a large portion of the audience. Until you know the trick.
That's why I propose miracles that require processes that cannot be simulated. Sure, regrowing a limb may be medically possible some day, but if it were to happen instantaneously today I'd be a lot more open to the idea of supernatural cause.
quote:If we want to believe that it had to have been faked, that's what we'll believe.
That assume bad faith(heh) on the part of the observer. I'll believe whatever appears to be true. I may be biased towards a conclusion, but sufficient evidence can sway my conclusions. It's happened before and I'm sure it'll happen again. It helps that I don't have anyone telling me to seek experiences that reinforce my existing beliefs.
Of course a much simpler definition of a miracle for me is "that which would convince me of the existence of God and his nature." Presuming he is omnipotent and omniscient, he both knows what to do and how to do it even if I don't.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Implicit in the definition of a miracle is being unable to explain it away using natural understanding.
That might be implicit in your definition of a miracle, but it sure isn't in mine.
Well then, what's your definition?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The trouble with concepts like "miracle" and "supernatural" is that what qualifies in either category is pretty much a matter of subjective opinion. For instance, if God exists there really isn't any reason to consider Him any less "natural" than many of the other strange things out there that exist. And if some bizarre phenomenon happens, there is no real reason to call it a "miracle" instead of "something yet to be explained".
Given this, I'm not sure either concept can be relied upon to make any sort of strong argument for or against anything.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Implicit in the definition of a miracle is being unable to explain it away using natural understanding.
Yes, well in the supposedly crappy example miracle I gave, you couldn't explain it away using natural understanding. You just said, "There must be a non-miraculous explanation for this-I just don't know it yet."
Your perspective renders impossible any miracles to begin with. It's hardly a point in your favor therefore that you wouldn't believe in a miracle.
I'm sorry, but I didn't say "There must be a non-miraculous explanation for this-I just don't know it yet."
I said we would need a doctor to check for the injury and healing, and to be completely convinced would need to see it happen more than once.
Seeing something once with absolutely no investigation isn't terribly convincing to me.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That is why... you fail. [/yoda]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:For instance, if God exists there really isn't any reason to consider Him any less "natural" than many of the other strange things out there that exist
Well, the Universe seems to operate by some strict rules. The arbitrary violation of those rules is as good a definition of supernatural as any. That does leave a lot of room for "something yet to be explained" but I think that we know enough about how some of those rules work that there could be supernatural events which could not be easily explained as just natural phenomena which we do not yet understand.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: That is why... you fail. [/yoda]
If you can lift an X-Wing out of a bog with the force, then we'll talk. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Javert,
quote:If I saw it in person, and we had a doctor to indicate that both the person was really injured in the first place and then that the person was really healed...that would definitely give me pause.
If it was repeatable, that would put me well on the way to becoming a believer.
OK, so what you in fact said was, "First I would have to exhaust every conceivable natural explanation, and then I would be 'well on my way" to becoming a believer (in miracles)."
So in fact, you said what I said you said, basically: even if you exhausted every known possible natural explanation, you still would not be convinced it was a miracle.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Tom, I'm still not sure how you're using the term 'supernatural.' In its common definitions it doesn't really apply to deism in general; indeed, it seems contradictory to deism's very premises.
Anyhow, it's pretty clear Jefferson was a monotheist, though not a Christian (if that means that Jesus was the Son of God or a savior in any metaphysical way). The Waterhouse letter is probably the most conclusive evidence here.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Javert,
quote:If I saw it in person, and we had a doctor to indicate that both the person was really injured in the first place and then that the person was really healed...that would definitely give me pause.
If it was repeatable, that would put me well on the way to becoming a believer.
OK, so what you in fact said was, "First I would have to exhaust every conceivable natural explanation, and then I would be 'well on my way" to becoming a believer (in miracles)."
So in fact, you said what I said you said, basically: even if you exhausted every known possible natural explanation, you still would not be convinced it was a miracle.
Wow. Even when you quote me, you get it wrong.
I said we investigate it. If there's a natural explanation, it's natural. If there isn't, then it very well may be a miracle.
If it only happened once, I'd probably label it a 'mystery'. But if every time a preacher prayed and laid hands on an injured person they were healed, I'd call that a miracle.
But either way I'm not going to be lenient with my testing parameters.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I said we investigate it. If there's a natural explanation, it's natural. If there isn't, then it very well may be a miracle.
If it only happened once, I'd probably label it a 'mystery'. But if every time a preacher prayed and laid hands on an injured person they were healed, I'd call that a miracle.
This second paragraph is definitely not what you said before. Before you said that even if it was repeated, you would only be "well on your way". Now you're labeling it a miracle.
I don't mind disagreeing about stuff, but please don't get snippy with me about not getting your intent right when you're changing it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I said we investigate it. If there's a natural explanation, it's natural. If there isn't, then it very well may be a miracle.
If it only happened once, I'd probably label it a 'mystery'. But if every time a preacher prayed and laid hands on an injured person they were healed, I'd call that a miracle.
This second paragraph is definitely not what you said before. Before you said that even if it was repeated, you would only be "well on your way". Now you're labeling it a miracle.
I don't mind disagreeing about stuff, but please don't get snippy with me about not getting your intent right when you're changing it.
"Well on my way" was being simplistic about it. Labeling something a mystery and then testing to see if it happens again is "well on my way" to believing, isn't it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In its common definitions it doesn't really apply to deism in general; indeed, it seems contradictory to deism's very premises.
If deists don't realize that their god is supernatural, that's their own failing.
As to the letter, I don't think Jefferson's clear dislike of Calvinism is evidence for his own monotheism. His mention of the Quakers is telling: what he dislikes is faith without works, and paradox, and logical impossibility. He sees all these things in Trinitarian religions, which is why he prefers the monotheistic alternatives; it's not like espousing Buddhism or atheism would be practical for him in that situation, especially considering his audience.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Implicit in the definition of a miracle is being unable to explain it away using natural understanding.
That might be implicit in your definition of a miracle, but it sure isn't in mine.
Well then, what's your definition?
A miracle is anything wondrous. Babies are miracles. A rainbow is a miracle. Agates. Starfruit. Evolution. Fractals. Sand Dollars. Friendship.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Unitarian, eh?
quote:
Isaac Newton was an anti-Trinitarian, and possibly a Unitarian.[9]
The formation of a distinct Unitarian denomination dates from the secession (1773) of Theophilus Lindsey (1723–1808) from the Anglican Church, on the failure of the Feathers petition to parliament (1772) for relief from subscription. Lindsey's secession had been preceded in Ireland by that of William Robertson D.D. (1705–1783), who has been called "the father of Unitarian nonconformity". It was followed by other clerical secessions, mostly of men who left the ministry, and Lindsey's hope of a Unitarian movement from the Anglican Church was disappointed. By degrees his type of theology superseded Arianism in a considerable number of dissenting congregations.
The Toleration Act was amended (1779) by substituting belief in Scripture for belief in the Anglican (doctrinal) articles. In 1813 the penal acts against deniers of the Trinity were repealed. In 1825 the British and Foreign Unitarian Association was formed as an amalgamation of three older societies, for literature (1791), mission work (1806) and civil rights (1818). (from the wiki on Unitarian theology, as opposed to Unitarian Universalism)
Well that's interesting. I wonder why they are called Deists and not Unitarians?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Implicit in the definition of a miracle is being unable to explain it away using natural understanding.
That might be implicit in your definition of a miracle, but it sure isn't in mine.
Well then, what's your definition?
A miracle is anything wondrous. Babies are miracles. A rainbow is a miracle. Agates. Starfruit. Evolution. Fractals. Sand Dollars. Friendship.
I think one of my favorite headlines from The Onion a few years ago was(and I may not get this exactly right):
"Miracle of Childbirth Occurs for the 66 Billionth Time!" Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Does anyone else get the same first google hit for "wondrous" as I do?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: A miracle is anything wondrous. Babies are miracles. A rainbow is a miracle. Agates. Starfruit. Evolution. Fractals. Sand Dollars. Friendship.
So nearly everyone can be sainted, then?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Yep.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Does anyone else get the same first google hit for "wondrous" as I do?
I'm pretty sure, yes.
I'm feeling lucky. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
JH: Is that what it really means? C'mon, I remember in my namesake's time when being a saint meant it took getting your head chopped off, picking it up, walking around, preaching, and then being buried on a site that would later be used for the *burial of French kings*.
Now you can program a fractal in five minutes and be called a saint? It looks like "saint" has become the religious equivalent of an "Assistant Manager" at McDonald's Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The trouble with concepts like "miracle" and "supernatural" is that what qualifies in either category is pretty much a matter of subjective opinion. For instance, if God exists there really isn't any reason to consider Him any less "natural" than many of the other strange things out there that exist.
Or any of the ordinary things. Exactly.
quote: Well, the Universe seems to operate by some strict rules.
Why?
edit to add: For a certain definition of "saint", we indeed could all be saints. In our church, we have niches that hold statues of saints; one of those is left empty "for the saints in our own lives".
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
According to Paul, all Christians are saints.
Tom - I don't think Jefferson's criticism of Calvin is evidence of his own monotheism either. I do think his lavish praise for what he calls the true religion of Jesus - an ethical religion that springs from one true God - is evidence.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I don't know the specifics of how others use the term.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. That I figured was flattery aimed at the recipient of the letter, given Jefferson's other written opinions on the same topic.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Mucus: Yep!
quote:According to Paul, all Christians are saints.
So I could start addressing my Christian friends as St. Joanna, St. Christine, etc., and no one would get upset unless they think Paul is wrong, right?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Well, the Universe seems to operate by some strict rules.
Why?
Dunno.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Stupid modern low-standard saints. *waves a cane*
Get off my lawn!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Well, the Universe seems to operate by some strict rules.
Why?
Dunno.
Me neither. But I think the fact that it does is kinda miraculous.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm not seeing where Jefferson used the word saint. But you'll have to understand that with the tone of conversation right now, I'm reticent to share my real feelings on the matter.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If I were a doctor and this thread had been delivered into my ER i would be like 'we need 1500 cc's of chill, stat'
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Me neither. But I think the fact that it does is kinda miraculous.
The universe is wonderful and amazing, but for many people "miraculous" implies an intentional causality which I have no knowledge of.
If "miraculous" just means "wonderful and amazing" to you, then sure, I'm with you.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
There's a whole lot of correspondence with Joseph Priestly, in which Jefferson expresses similar opinions, and some with John Adams as well.
He wrote to Benjamin Rush that Jesus corrected the religion of the Jews by adding true ethics to their monotheism; he wrote the same to Priestly. I really don't think that this consistency can be written off.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Well, the Universe seems to operate by some strict rules.
Why?
Dunno.
Me neither. But I think the fact that it does is kinda miraculous.
Depending how you use that word, I might agree with you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, if you're looking to Jefferson for consistency, I don't know how to talk to you. That may sound like a shot, but it's not meant to be. Thomas Jefferson is perhaps one of the most striking examples we've got for inconsistencies.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm using my cane to separate out the "you need three verified miracles and be recognized in a process taking years and then be canonized by the Pope" saint from the "I can call a graphics library and create a fractal or pop out a baby" McSaint Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The trouble with concepts like "miracle" and "supernatural" is that what qualifies in either category is pretty much a matter of subjective opinion. For instance, if God exists there really isn't any reason to consider Him any less "natural" than many of the other strange things out there that exist. And if some bizarre phenomenon happens, there is no real reason to call it a "miracle" instead of "something yet to be explained".
Given this, I'm not sure either concept can be relied upon to make any sort of strong argument for or against anything.
I am about to say something I thought I never would.....
I agree with Tres completely on this point. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Now we get into the murkey area of whether anything a person does actually makes them a saint, besides believing in Jesus and some simple ordinances.
And yet Mormons get grief all the time for being works oriented. It's very odd.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
1) The Vatican's process is for recognizing a saint, it does not cause someone to become one.
2) Calling up a graphics library does not create the wonder that is fractals, so the person doing so has not done a miracle. Nor has the person who gives birth to the miracle that is a baby.
3) A saint is someone in close relationship with God, not someone who performs miracles.
4) As others have already said, all Christians are called to be saints.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He wrote to Benjamin Rush that Jesus corrected the religion of the Jews by adding true ethics to their monotheism; he wrote the same to Priestly.
Yes. The implication here is that their monotheism lacked ethics, so the addition of ethics was an improvement. He's not saying that he's a monotheist; he's saying he's an ethicist.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: [qb]If it was repeatable, that would put me well on the way to becoming a believer.
OK, so what you in fact said was, "First I would have to exhaust every conceivable natural explanation, and then I would be 'well on my way" to becoming a believer (in miracles)."
This isn't really related to your discussion with Javert, but your paraphrasing of Javert's point is the only valid way of finding evidence for a supernatural being. We live in a natural world by definition so plausible natural explanations for events should be favored over supernatural explanations by default (basically an application Occam's Razor). Supernatural explanations should be considered plausible only in cases where (a) we have a decent understanding of the subject area concerned with the event and (b) the event would be astronomically unlikely given our understanding of the related subject area.
Examples: - Our knowledge of diseases such as cancer is still far from complete so the arbitrary [and rare] recovery of a cancer patient without treatment is not valid evidence for a supernatural being. - If an amputee has a limb spontaneously regrow in an hour then a supernatural explanation is worthy of consideration.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: 1) The Vatican's process is for recognizing a saint, it does not cause someone to become one.
2) Calling up a graphics library does not create the wonder that is fractals, so the person doing so has not done a miracle. Nor has the person who gives birth to the miracle that is a baby.
3) A saint is someone in close relationship with God, not someone who performs miracles.
4) As others have already said, all Christians are called to be saints.
First, even if we accept your premise 3) and 4) contradict. Not all Christians have a close relationship with God, thus not all Christians are saints.
Second, if we accept 4) and all Christians are to be called saints, why not just rename all Christians to saints and be done with the middleman? And of what possible worth is a title that millions of people can all get with little or no effort?
Third, in the case of 3). Sure it does. I call a compiler, I've created a program. I use a Microsoft Word, I've created a document. I call a graphics library, I've created whatever images are encoded in the graphics library. Unless you want to get pedantic and say my computer created it....but I'm not sure we're ready for St. Athlon 3200+ X2
Fourth, I never said that the Vatican created saints, I just said it takes them a lot of work and research to decide if someone is a saint. If everyone and their dog can become a saint, then they're certainly wasting a lot of time and they have a heck of a backlog since they're probably in what, the thousands range for saints?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Many are called, but few...
Being called is not the same thing as fulfilling the calling.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
3 & 4 are not contradictory All Christians are called to be in close relationship with God. Not all actually are.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Now we're getting somewhere. His religion is indeed one of ethics rather than the supernatural; however, he credits the existence of ethics to God. This God is neither personal nor interventionist. However, he is the ultimate source of creation; providence.
The Priestly letter, excerpts:
quote: II. JEWS. 1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief of one only God. But their ideas of him & of his attributes were degrading & injurious.
2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason & morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; & repulsive & anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.
III. JESUS. In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared . . . He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and government.
2. His moral doctrines, relating to kindred & friends, were more pure & perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.
3. The precepts of philosophy, & of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.
This is classic deism. Note that Jefferson maintains that all true religion is intellectual; it's about reasoning out the nature of things and determining true behavior. It acknowledges God, but elevates the abilities of humanity.
This is the sort of thing Jefferson was praising in the Waterhouse letter, when he declares that he hopes the entire nation will become Unitarian, and declares as "the great truth" this:
quote: 1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I don't think AMD ever made an X2 3200+
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Being called is not the same thing as fulfilling the calling.
*Whew* Thats good. So there are at least "some" standards for being a saint, I was starting to get worried there.
Threads: St. Athlon 3200+ X2 was a very rare model. Records of it were expunged when it overheated and blew up St. Duke.Nukem.Forever.dll
[ November 27, 2007, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Note that Jefferson maintains that all true religion is intellectual; it's about reasoning out the nature of things and determining true behavior. It acknowledges God...
I'm not sure where any acknowlegment of God occurs, with the possible exception of the positing of a "future state of reward and punishment," something that many pre-Enlightenment scholars felt was the only obvious justification for a system of natural morality.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The only pre-Enlightenment atheist I know of -- as opposed to some version of a "God of the Gaps" deist -- is Epicurus, and even he spent a lot of time talking about gods. He just defined the "gods" in such a way that they were non-sentient natural forces. The term "atheist" is very old, but the modern form of atheism -- in which no supernatural forces are believed to have ever been necessary -- is as far as I know indeed very modern.
Tom, the way I understand it that isn't true, as I remember learning about the "watchmaker god" theory specifically relating to Deists. By their beliefs all things are both natural AND miracles. God set things in motion, but is pretty much hands off until things wind down completely.
After that who knows.
Nature to me is one of the MOST miraculous things in the world. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
In the Universal Life Church, you can become a Saint for a mere $10!
Sure, it's not free like in some churches, but you get a nice certificate (suitable for framing!) Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:I'm not sure where any acknowlegment of God occurs
Really?
quote:II. JEWS. 1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief of one only God. But their ideas of him & of his attributes were degrading & injurious . . . III. JESUS. In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared . . . He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God . . .
quote: 1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
Now, this 'one God' was as I've said, neither personal nor Trinitarian; rather, it was the source of both the creation and the ethics by which human societies would best operate.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: In the Universal Life Church, you can become a Saint for a mere $10!
Sure, it's not free like in some churches, but you get a nice certificate (suitable for framing!)
Doctor of the Universe sounds good. Who would stop you from performing medicine anywhere?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Doctor of Immortality!
All of a sudden, I'm reminded of the Mummy...
-pH
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Now, this 'one God' was as I've said, neither personal nor Trinitarian; rather, it was the source of both the creation and the ethics by which human societies would best operate.
And, again, there was at that time no other viable theory for physical creation, and for that matter only a couple of out-of-fashion philosophers who'd posited the possibility of a "natural morality" without resorting to divine fiat. How can you get more "God of the gaps" than that?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
You don't have to 'get God of the gaps.' It wasn't as though Jefferson and John Toland and Locke and Tindal and the rest were struggling to escape theism. Indeed, Toland denounces atheism in Christianity not Mysterious, as does John Locke in A letter concerning Toleration. Jefferson read and cites both these guys; atheism was therefore certainly an option to him.
Yet he wrote to Waterhouse that he was
quote:anxious to see the doctrine of one god commenced in our state .... the population of my neighborhood is too slender, and is too much divided into other sects to maintain any one preacher well. I must therefore be contented to be an Unitarian by myself, although I know there are many around me who would become so, if once they could hear the questions fairly stated.
For all these guys, deism explained the way they believed the universe worked better than atheism did.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It wasn't as though Jefferson and John Toland and Locke and Tindal and the rest were struggling to escape theism.
See, that's exactly my claim: that Jefferson specifically was struggling to escape theism. His use of unitarianism basically constitutes the modern version of weak atheism, deprived of modern arguments for morality and abiogenesis; it's not for nothing that modern unitarians basically are atheists who need an excuse to drink coffee with other people. I think he would have leaped for joy had he been made aware of those developments in his own lifetime.
Consider, after all, Locke's own rationale for fearing atheism (later echoed by Washington in his famous address): that oaths and allegiances would be meaningless to an atheist, and morality could not be shared without a common god to whom we could appeal. This was considered sound argument to the people of this era, Matt; there was at the time no real response formulated to this criticism. I think Jefferson in particular, of the political figures of his day, would have welcomed one.
Heck, to be perfectly honest, I think almost every single Deist of the Enlightenment would be an atheist in the modern climate; the cases for deism are simply too weak to persist when atheism exists as a rational option.
[ November 27, 2007, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Modern Unitarians are different from non-trinitarian deists of Jefferson's day.
And I don't believe science has yet revealed a first cause for the creation of the Universe. To the believer, the big bang proves God more than any other event because it was extremely improbable. Well, based on this big picture book my 6th grader brought home from school the other day. But the picture book made fun of the biblical account, so... there it is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And I don't believe science has yet revealed a first cause for the creation of the Universe.
Science hasn't settled on a first cause, but there are a few plausible theories out there nowadays. Now, when you say "we aren't completely sure how or why X happened," X is much, much smaller than it used to be.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:To the believer, the big bang proves God more than any other event because it was extremely improbable.
I think the scientific consensus is that we have no idea how probable the Big Bang was.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
I think we've gone in circles a bit here, Tom; what you've just written is a slightly less ambitious version of your first argument, which was that Jefferson was secretly an atheist. Now you're arguing that he would have liked to have been one, but couldn't bring himself to it because he feared atheism's effect on morality.
If I'm reading you right, you're arguing that atheism could not answer two questions: 1)the first cause; 2)the ultimate source of morality. Thus, these folks were required to turn to deism as a second best scenario. Setting aside the fact that a few Enlightenment folks (like Voltaire) made nontheist cases for these things, I actually think deism ran deeper than these.
The problem is that folks today seem to assume that atheism has the market cornered when it comes to rationality and religion is inherently a-rational. For the deists, the reverse was the case: the Enlightenment convinced them that _everything_ was ultimately subject to reason. Since science, the fruit of human reason, seemed able to explain the universe, it was logical to them that the universe was itself a product of reason, and hence of a reasoner. Atheism to Toland, for example, posited a cosmos devoid of rational order.
All of this is to say that it appears to me that you're edging close to a progressive view of history, in which humanity gradually attains enlightenment, which equals us. This seems a fallacy to me. Rather, I'd argue that Jefferson and the rest lived in a world qualitatively different from our own.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think we've gone in circles a bit here, Tom; what you've just written is a slightly less ambitious version of your first argument, which was that Jefferson was secretly an atheist.
I didn't say he was secretly an atheist. I've consistently said that he was as atheist as it was possible for a rational man to be at that time. Not all deists were rational men, certainly. (I'm looking at Toland, here, who was as you've noted a complete sap; Jefferson's friend Priestly, who may or may not have actually considered himself a deist, was scarcely better.) Jefferson, however, was (IMO) just rational enough to have difficulty reconciling the pat deist insistence on a divinely-authorized "common morality" with his own observations. By this I mean that while he was clearly conversant in the "five principles" of Deism, I don't get the sense from his work that he actually believed them.
I'm sure you're familiar with his writings on the topic of religion; it's hard for me to understand why, then, you would think he would not embrace with open arms the substantial developments of modern philosophy. Like almost all the "deists" among the Founding Fathers, Jefferson's greatest struggle with non-religious thought was with the gaps -- specifically the two I've identified. Jefferson's Bible is an enormous intellectual failure for all the reasons Ben Rush identified, and I'm willing to project a bit and imagine that Jefferson, who in most other things was more rigorous, fell apart here when trying to project his own morality upon a text that simply wasn't compatible with it. One of the reasons I'm so sure he's an atheist, in fact, is that this sort of projection has about it the same air of desperation that I've seen with in modern atheists who, being familiar with theology, initially work to reconcile reality with faith before giving up; his tendency to fall back upon old platitudes without questioning them is exactly the sort of intellectual cowardice I'd expect in that situation. He's aware of the emptiness in the center of what he's writing, but doesn't have anything to fill it with; the things to fill it with won't be a matter of public discourse for another hundred years. There's a great loneliness there that's missing the comfort that someone like, say, Washington takes from the same philosophy.
I think you're also missing the fact that Deism was, in Jefferson's time, also a form of quasi-political anti-papism; if you disliked the machinations of the Catholic church, and were uncomfortable with the Calvinists, deism provided what seemed like a "big tent" alternative -- and one that was perfectly consistent with observable reality, at that. You could be a godless deist without too much blinking; Voltaire even got accused of it himself, and of course Toland eventually headed in Epicurus' direction before going all wacky.
quote:All of this is to say that it appears to me that you're edging close to a progressive view of history, in which humanity gradually attains enlightenment, which equals us.
Not quite. I believe we have gradually attained enlightenment, but are not yet enlightened. We're certainly more enlightened than the people of the 18th century, though. And they were, in turn, more enlightened than the people of Augustine's time; a simple glance at what passed for logic under Anselm demonstrates that sort of thing, in my opinion.
[ November 28, 2007, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I believe we have gradually attained enlightenment, but are not yet enlightened."
Interesting. What happens when we eventually encounter aliens?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Probably the same thing that happened when Western philosophers encountered the Chinese.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Probably the same thing that happened when Western philosophers encountered the Chinese.
Honestly curious, what happened?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote: I believe we have gradually attained enlightenment, but are not yet enlightened. We're certainly more enlightened than the people of the 18th century, though. And they were, in turn, more enlightened than the people of Augustine's time; a simple glance at what passed for logic under Anselm demonstrates that sort of thing, in my opinion
I believe this is about a perfect description of a progressive view of history. It makes for an interesting argument for our own time, but it does little to explicate the actual history. Rather, it uses history as a fashioned tool for self-examination/aggrandizement.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Seriously. I'm curious too. My thought on it all was that Western philosophy has largely ignored East Asian philosophy. They are talking about largely different things, and/or approaching the subject from very different POV. The Chinese purposely encode multiple levels of meaning into their writing, quite often. Without the code, it's hard to get every level. This doesn't mean I understand every level, far from it. It does mean that I know more is there than I can see myself at this point.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It makes for an interesting argument for our own time, but it does little to explicate the actual history. Rather, it uses history as a fashioned tool for self-examination/aggrandizement.
Why is it necessary to think of the people of the past as our equals to understand them? I understand my daughter pretty well, but I know she's not my equal. Surely you'd argue that God understands us, but you wouldn't claim He's our equal. Society is better now by any standard I care about than it was three hundred years ago; I don't see how that statement somehow reduces the study of history to flattery. In all seriousness, I can't understand why we'd have to pretend that, for example, Anselm's argument for the existence of the Christian God is anything but ridiculously stupid in order to study his contemporaries; it was stupid, but they didn't realize it was stupid, and we can move on from there. His logic doesn't get any better just because it's historical.
History isn't "progressive." Societies, however, are. They don't always improve, but I think it's silly to assert that they don't always progress.
--------
quote:My thought on it all was that Western philosophy has largely ignored East Asian philosophy.
Western philosophers took the bits of East Asian philosophy they thought they understood and tested it against their Western philosophies, and basically used it to fill in the holes. I'm pretty sure that exactly the same thing would happen if we met aliens; they'd bring us some new perspectives, we'd test them against our preconceptions, and we'd eventually accept the result.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Why is it necessary to think of the people of the past as our equals to understand them?
Why do you believe that unless they would come to same conclusion you would, they are not an equal?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You used the phrase "self-aggrandizement;" this strongly suggests that you believe there's a component of superiority.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Hey Matt, out of curiosity, what do you mean by this statement:
quote:Fugu, I think you're overstating the influence of Lincoln's depression. He never really experienced a conversion of the evangelical sort. In his maturity, however, he was certainly not a deist; indeed, in his maturity he seems to have tended to a cultural, non-Christian Old Testament style Calvinism.
I'm confused at the terms "cultural, non-Christian, and Old Testament" being used to modify Calvinism.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Western philosophers took the bits of East Asian philosophy they thought they understood and tested it against their Western philosophies, and basically used it to fill in the holes. ...
Examples? I must admit I am curious about this too, not having studied the subject much from this perspective.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, there's a whole field out there called "comparative philosophy" that basically deals with the fallout. In my experience, though, comparative philosophers overstate the differences between the philosophies by playing up the gulfs in epistemology; the problem with that sort of "emphasize the divergence" approach is that Western philosophy has been very concerned with epistemology since at the very least Hume, so Eastern philosophy doesn't actually bring anything very contradictory to the table. Lots of Western philosophers already believed that reality could not be accurately addressed through a positive contract; they just happened to be in a functional minority, since I think it's pretty indisputable that that particular approach is impractical.
That said, I think the argument that certain fundamental "world pictures" have colored different philosophical approaches is indisputable; many Chinese philosophies emphasize that the world is the way it is, and philosophy's role is seen as a way of helping someone find his or her place in that world -- which is, of course, at odds with traditional Western approaches. I disagree with the claim that this makes the two traditions incompatible; they may well be trying to answer different questions, but I think that this is precisely where they best contribute to each other. Western thought has not, in my opinion, generally dealt well with coming to peace with the way things are; it seeks excuses or reasons for the status quo, but rarely (until recently) useful techniques for contentment. As a consequence, Western society rather greedily adapted pseudo-deep "pop psychology" from Eastern traditions; exhortations to "just let go" or "minimalize your life" as actions for their own sake, as independently beneficial things, are the result. (It's worth noting that Eastern religions themselves would probably no longer recognize the way this has been adapted to Western culture.)
At the end of the day, and to make this really brief, I don't think Eastern philosophy had that much to offer Western philosophy that Hume and his compatriots hadn't already started to explore -- but I think familiarity with the concepts was made easier by a long Eastern tradition of anecdotes and "personalized" applications of these principles that helped to fill in the gaps and confusions that might otherwise have arisen from arguments over the nature of knowledge.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think you do the contributions of Eastern philsophy an injustice. There are several fundametal additions to Western philosophy, such as a workable system for the union of opposites and field theory, that it carried.
In Psychology, cross-cultural psychology has been one of the hotter topics since the early 90s, and has led to revolutions of our conceptions of conceptions of the self and what, really, is "human nature".
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It should be noted that (having said all this about the great leaders of the 1800s), if you asked people to list the great leaders of this most recent century, the list would include mostly people who were quite religious: Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., the Dalai Llama, Pope John Paul II... FDR's Episcopal background likely influenced his welfare policies towards the poor... for conservatives Ronald Reagan was a Christian too... Who else belongs on such a list? Churchill is the only one I could think of who'd likely make the list who would even be borderline. Even Albert Einstein, who was not a political leader but was probably the century's most influential thinker, was significantly religious.
So, I'm not sure what the point is about Jefferson, Lincoln, and Washington but - it is certainly not true that atheism has been a prominent feature of the world's most recent great leaders. And if society is progressive, the trend from one century to the next of our most iconic and effective leaders is headed in the direction of greater religious faith, not towards atheism.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:I didn't say he was secretly an atheist. I've consistently said that he was as atheist as it was possible for a rational man to be at that time.
Tom, again, I think you're confusing atheism with rationality, and buying into the accusations of orthodox Christians of the day that made deism merely a stepping stone to atheism. I'm uncomfortable with that - and the sort of presentist interpretations of Jefferson that people like Hitchens produce, because they tend to reduce the complexities of historical context down to simple Whiggism.
Priestly, by the way, was in no sense a deist; he was a Unitarian, a millenarian, and didn't believe in free will.
Belle - By that I mean that Lincoln, while he certainly did not believe in orthodox Calvinism (and indeed, probably was not a Christian), absorbed the mood of somebody like Edwards or Samuel Hopkins; he developed a strong sense of God's providence, of the nation as a moral entity, and the war as means to purge national sin. This is of course, reminiscent of the way God interacted with the children of Israel in the Old Testament.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
By the way, I think we merely disagree about Jefferson's writings; I see in them a great deal of enthusiasm for rational religion. Hitchens and Dawkins, of course (who I suspect you've read here) do not.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Even Albert Einstein, who was not a political leader but was probably the century's most influential thinker, was significantly religious.
That claim is fairly bogus. When Einstein said "God does not play dice" he was referring to the idea that randomness plays a part in our universe. A more telling statement that he made was "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." I don't think that beliefs like that fall under the category of "significantly religious."
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: And if society is progressive, the trend from one century to the next of our most iconic and effective leaders is headed in the direction of greater religious faith, not towards atheism.
I see absolutely no evidence to support that claim though I have no idea how you define "greater religious faith." For example, I would argue that Martine Luther had greater religious faith* than Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. and that his actions had a much larger impact on our lives (specifically our rights) than any modern day civil rights leader.
* I'm using "greater religious faith" to mean "more fundamentalist." In other words, a young earth creationist has greater religious faith than a mainstream "modern" Christian who accepts evolution and does not take all parts of the Bible literally.
Edit: I realized that my use of "rational" to describe "modern" Christians may be offensive to some. I changed it to "mainstream" because that is closer to what I meant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, again, I think you're confusing atheism with rationality, and buying into the accusations of orthodox Christians of the day that made deism merely a stepping stone to atheism.
Barring personal revelation of some kind, I think atheism is pretty much a necessary condition of rationality, yes. That's one of the reasons why I think deism is an extremely poor choice in the modern era, which has rendered deism absolutely unnecessary. (That I disagree with orthodox Christians on many things does not mean that I must disagree with them on everything; like them, I think a rational deist is on a very slippery slope towards atheism, barring any obvious "gaps.")
quote:And if society is progressive, the trend from one century to the next of our most iconic and effective leaders is headed in the direction of greater religious faith, not towards atheism.
Part of that, IMO, is that we give religious leaders a wider berth. John Paul got away with a lot because he was Pope that he wouldn't've gotten away with if he were, say, the elected leader of Poland. If the Dalai Lama weren't a lama, but were merely a revolutionary leader, he'd probably be dead.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
* I'm using "greater religious faith" to mean "more fundamentalist." In other words, a young earth creationist has greater religious faith than a mainstream "modern" Christian who accepts evolution and does not take all parts of the Bible literally.
Well that's certainly an example of writing your definitions to support your conclusion.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Barring personal revelation of some kind, I think atheism is pretty much a necessary condition of rationality, yes.
Why the wink? Does this not describe what you've been trying to say exactly?
And to set things at right, I'll point out that the effect of Western philosophy on China has been completely poisonous.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: And to set things at right, I'll point out that the effect of Western philosophy on China has been completely poisonous.
To China, or to the West? Or both?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It's a barb on the ethnocentrism of considering the influence of China on the grand edifice of Western philosophy.
I think the Romans were pretty sure that their civilization represented the pinnacle of social progression.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why the wink? Does this not describe what you've been trying to say exactly?
Other way around; it's a necessary precondition for what I've been trying to say.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Why the wink? Does this not describe what you've been trying to say exactly?
Other way around; it's a necessary precondition for what I've been trying to say.
That atheism is a necessary condition for rationality, and not the product of it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No. What I'm trying to say is that Jefferson would almost certainly be an atheist had he access to modern knowledge.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
* I'm using "greater religious faith" to mean "more fundamentalist." In other words, a young earth creationist has greater religious faith than a mainstream "modern" Christian who accepts evolution and does not take all parts of the Bible literally.
Well that's certainly an example of writing your definitions to support your conclusion.
Religious faith is not a quantitative measure so that's the only definition that made sense to me. You could have posted your own definition. I'd be more than happy to discuss it. I made it clear that I didn't know Tresopax's definition of "greater religious faith" so I don't know why you felt the need to be a jerk and accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Barring personal revelation of some kind, I think atheism is pretty much a necessary condition of rationality, yes.
So a person cannot be rational unless they are atheist? I can see why this puts you in the awkward position of having to claim historical figures are "atheist" when they openly state a belief in God.
I'd have to disagree though. I think perfect rationality inevitably leads one to faith, of one sort of another. Which one depends upon one's starting assumptions and observations. Two different perfectly rational people could easily come to different rational conclusions about the universe if they had different starting assumptions and observations. A rational person could conceivably make observations or accept starting assumptions that lead them to be atheist, but it would still entail having faith in some other unprovable beliefs about the fundamental nature of the universe. Or a rational person could conceivably observe things and accept assumptions that would lead them to accept theism, which also would entail other unprovable beliefs about the fundamental nature of the universe.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It's a barb on the ethnocentrism of considering the influence of China on the grand edifice of Western philosophy.
I think the Romans were pretty sure that their civilization represented the pinnacle of social progression.
Wait wait what? I'm not quite following what you are saying here. First I saw that Western Philosophy was poisonous to China and I was not sure how it connects to this statement. It seems like there is an extra word in that sentence that is throwing me off.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So a person cannot be rational unless they are atheist? I can see why this puts you in the awkward position of having to claim historical figures are "atheist" when they openly state a belief in God.
In the modern era, absolutely. There's no remaining rational argument for God. This is not to say that irrationality is a serious flaw; lots of irrational people are also good, fully functional people. But supernaturalism has been rendered unnecessary.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I made it clear that I didn't know Tresopax's definition of "greater religious faith" so I don't know why you felt the need to be a jerk and accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
Sorry, by "greater religious faith" I simply mean they are more confident in a religious belief system.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:There's no remaining rational argument for God.
Sure there is! At least there is as much as there is a rational argument for there not being a God.
I could give you several rational arguments for God if you want.
quote:But supernaturalism has been rendered unnecessary.
Here is a mistaken leap you are making. "Unnecessary" does not equal "Irrational". There is no logical necessity to believe in the existence of the past, for instance - but that doesn't mean it is irrational to believe in it. There is no logical necessity for you to believe I have an uncle, but it is not irrational to believe so. Atheism is also unnecessary in the same fashion.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:There's no remaining rational argument for God.
Sure there is! At least there is as much as there is a rational argument for there not being a God.
I could give you several rational arguments for God if you want.
I don't know about Tom, but I want to hear them.
Unless this is the wrong place for such things, originally having been a thread about Mitt Romney. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Everyone was considering whether China (or more broadly, Eastern thought) had an effect on Western philosophy. I was turning it around and saying what is the West's impact on China? And the most prominent thing that came to mind was Marx and communism.
I was then acknowledging that I was just doing this to barb people for assuming their own culture to be at the center of everything.
Sorry it didn't quite work.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:There's no remaining rational argument for God.
Of course there are. Primary mover, for one. Jsut because your faith in materialism counters them doesn't mean that they are irrational. Materialism is not equivilent to rationality.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I made it clear that I didn't know Tresopax's definition of "greater religious faith" so I don't know why you felt the need to be a jerk and accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
Sorry, by "greater religious faith" I simply mean they are more confident in a religious belief system.
That makes sense but, just to clarify, can a deist with no official religion have greater religious faith than a Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc. fundamentalist?
My initial reaction to your claim that "if society is progressive, the trend from one century to the next of our most iconic and effective leaders is headed in the direction of greater religious faith, not towards atheism." was that my own experiences and knowledge don't support that conclusion. In general, while your definition makes sense, I feel that both yours and mine are too difficult to quantify to make a reasonable trend prediction.
I hope I don't come across as irritable Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:There's no remaining rational argument for God.
Of course there are. Primary mover, for one. Jsut because your faith in materialism counters them doesn't mean that they are irrational. Materialism is not equivilent to rationality.
The problem with the primary mover argument is that the only thing it argues for is a primary mover, which doesn't have to be a god.
Nothing in the argument says that the primary mover had to survive the big bang, or had to have any features other than to set it off.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:But supernaturalism has been rendered unnecessary.
Here is a mistaken leap you are making. "Unnecessary" does not equal "Irrational". There is no logical necessity to believe in the existence of the past, for instance - but that doesn't mean it is irrational to believe in it. There is no logical necessity for you to believe I have an uncle, but it is not irrational to believe so. Atheism is also unnecessary in the same fashion.
I think what Tom meant by "unnecessary" was that supernaturalism has not been shown to be necessary to explain any observable events. Therefore, it is an unsatisfactory model for gaining insight into the universe/life/etc.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But several events in the split seconds following the big bang were as improbable as the big bang itself, so if the primary mover were separated from this universe by the big bang, it is still not a compelling cosmology.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Everyone was considering whether China (or more broadly, Eastern thought) had an effect on Western philosophy. I was turning it around and saying what is the West's impact on China? And the most prominent thing that came to mind was Marx and communism.
I was then acknowledging that I was just doing this to barb people for assuming their own culture to be at the center of everything.
Sorry it didn't quite work.
OK, understood. Two things.
1: It seems a bit pointless to chastise the West for thinking it was the center of everything, when China's traditional stance for thousands of years was, "We are the center of everything, everyone outside our country are barbarians, they have nothing to offer us." For goodness sake China's name in Chinese still means, "Center Country/Kingdom." It's very much a pot calling the kettle black. Not that you embody the essence of Chineseness. Just as the Mongol Hordes came from the East and blew apart the West's concepts of superiority, the Europeans came from the West and blew open China's doors of ethnocentrism and elitism.
2: Marxism and Communism could not have polluted Chinese culture as much as they did were it not for many other aspects of Chinese culture that left them wide open for sickness. Many of these aspects are poison in of themselves.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The problem with the primary mover argument is that the only thing it argues for is a primary mover, which doesn't have to be a god.
Nothing in the argument says that the primary mover had to survive the big bang, or had to have any features other than to set it off.
Yeah, but none of that precludes it from being a rational argument for the existence of God.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I don't know about Tom, but I want to hear them.
Here's a really really basic one: 1. The Bible says God exists. 2. Things the Bible says are more likely true than false, unless some known piece of evidence contradicts them. 3. There is no known evidence that contradicts the claim that God exists. 4. Therefore it is more likely true than false that God exists.
Conclusion #4 follows from premises #1-3. Thus, as long as you accept the premises, the conclusion is a rational extension of those premises.
OF course, you can deny the premises - but in the same fashion, one can deny the premises for any argument for atheism. That is why I said "at least there is as much as there is a rational argument for there not being a God". Both theism and atheism depend upon unprovable but not provably false assumptions. You can call this "rational" if you want, or you could claim that is "irrational", but either way it is the same for theism as it is for atheism.
quote:I think what Tom meant by "unnecessary" was that supernaturalism has not been shown to be necessary to explain any observable events. Therefore, it is an unsatisfactory model for gaining insight into the universe/life/etc.
Yes, that is pretty much what I meant by "unnecessary" to. (It is unnecessary to you that you believe I have an uncle, since you have made no observations that such a belief would explain.) But unnecessary does not imply irrational or unuseful. For instance, if God exists, believing that may be useful for getting to heaven even if it explained no observable evidence.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think what Tom meant by "unnecessary" was that supernaturalism has not been shown to be necessary to explain any observable events. Therefore, it is an unsatisfactory model for gaining insight into the universe/life/etc.
But neither of those claims are necessarily true.
The first depends on what you mean by observable.
The second depends on 1) the assumption that Occam's Razor is a reflection of reality, rather than a short-hand rule for a certain type of epistemology and 2) that events that aren't "observable" by the restrictive definition you'd need to use for the first part are not part of the life, the universe, and everything.
Atheism and materialism are choices on how to see the word. They are not more valid than many other sorts of choices, as judge by rational epistemology.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:"We are the center of everything, everyone outside our country are barbarians, they have nothing to offer us."
Well, right. That's why it's a barb. I'm sure it had something to do with point 2 and is why I think ethnocentrism is a sin to begin with.
quote:Not that you embody the essence of Chineseness.
That would be a sad state of affairs. |)
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But several events in the split seconds following the big bang were as improbable as the big bang itself, so if the primary mover were separated from this universe by the big bang, it is still not a compelling cosmology.
Can you give examples?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote: But several events in the split seconds following the big bang were as improbable as the big bang itself, so if the primary mover were separated from this universe by the big bang, it is still not a compelling cosmology.
We actually don't know how improbable the big bang was. For all we know, we could live in a universe that lends itself to big bangs. Maybe not. But it's certainly interesting.
quote:Yeah, but none of that precludes it from being a rational argument for the existence of God.
Perhaps. But again, it seems like it would only be an argument for a very simplistic god, because that's all that is required to have god be the primary mover. You need other arguments to fill in the 'extras' of what god is, if you happen to believe that.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: so I don't know why you felt the need to be a jerk and accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
I suspect it's somewhat similar to the reason you felt the need to be a jerk and accuse me of having less religious faith than someone who sticks their fingers in their ears and goes "LaLaLa" whenever science says something that doesn't fit into their world-veiw.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Perhaps. But again, it seems like it would only be an argument for a very simplistic god, because that's all that is required to have god be the primary mover. You need other arguments to fill in the 'extras' of what god is, if you happen to believe that.
I wasn't countering a statement that required anything more than to show that rational arguments for this did exist.
In general, my main bone of contention is these discussions is to challenge the epistemologically absurd claims made by people who assume that science and rationality supports their materialism.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I don't know about Tom, but I want to hear them.
Here's a really really basic one: 1. The Bible says God exists. 2. Things the Bible says are more likely true than false, unless some known piece of evidence contradicts them. 3. There is no known evidence that contradicts the claim that God exists. 4. Therefore it is more likely true than false that God exists.
Conclusion #4 follows from premises #1-3. Thus, as long as you accept the premises, the conclusion is a rational extension of those premises.
I think this is logical, but not rational. Two different things.
I can logically say that because 2+2=5, it means I'm Mitt Romney. But it's still not rational.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think the assumption that there is a beginning to the universe, is not accurate, and makes discussion on the nature of God needlessly complicated.
A beggining to the universe presupposes that were there a God, he was created by some process, or else exists outside the universe. Both suppositions have never been observed, much less understood.
If we assume that the universe and as an extension God have always existed, for me at least, it's much easier to rationally accept God.
edit: I accept that there being a beginning to the universe and that the universe has always existed are both equally likely in my mind.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Perhaps. But again, it seems like it would only be an argument for a very simplistic god, because that's all that is required to have god be the primary mover. You need other arguments to fill in the 'extras' of what god is, if you happen to believe that.
I wasn't countering a statement that required anything more than to show that rational arguments for this did exist.
In general, my main bone of contention is these discussions is to challenge the epistemologically absurd claims made by people who assume that science and rationality supports their materialism.
Well, it kind of does. I don't see how science and rationality doesn't support materialism. (Unless you're using a different definition of one of those words than I'm familiar with, which is completely possible.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I wasn't countering a statement that required anything more than to show that rational arguments for this did exist.
Let me be more precise: if you start with assumptions that accurately reflect reality, there are no rational arguments for God. Your definition of "rational" is of course accurate to a point, but it amounts to the old logic gate bit about "if all Nazis were bright purple, Hitler was a panda" being true; it's a "true statement" in a very narrow and specific way, but is otherwise ridiculous. In the same fashion, the premises required for a "rational" argument for God are, with a handful of exceptions that revolve around personal experience, ones that are no longer honestly supportable.
----------
Javert, Squicky's using a very narrow and specific definition of "rational" that you might not recognize. It's closer to your definition of "logical."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think the assumption that there is a beginning to the universe, is not accurate, and makes discussion on the nature of God needlessly complicated.
A beggining to the universe presupposes that were there a God, he was created by some process, or else exists outside the universe. Both suppositions have never been observed, much less understood.
If we assume that the universe and as an extension God have always existed, for me at least, it's much easier to rationally accept God.
I happen to think that the universe is eternal as well. But I'll accept the idea that there was a beginning for the sake of argument.
Anyway, the evidence seems to indicate that the universe that we know of and that currently exists had a beginning, the big bang, but that says nothing about what may have happened before.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It might be better if you explain to me how they do. Science works inside the materialistic scope. It is largely incapable of saying anything meaningful outside that scope.
Rationality, in general, is somewhat against materialism as it is inconsistent with perceived reality and assuing that it's all just an illusion without some justification is a violation of Occam's Razor.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Javert, Squicky's using a very narrow and specific definition of "rational" that you might not recognize
I'm pretty sure I'm not, you know.
If you're going to involve yourself in the dicussion, could I request that you contribute more than "Nuhuh!" when someone disagrees with you?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Anyway, the evidence seems to indicate that the universe that we know of and that currently exists had a beginning, the big bang, but that says nothing about what may have happened before.
I don't see any soft, much less hard evidence. Well to be accurate I think people look at the universe where everything we can observe has both a beginning and an end, and think EVERYTHING must therefore have it's beginning. But no matter how many trillions of things we observe with a beginning and an end that in of itself does not rightly make the universe a new development.
I just think the concepts of God, creation, and people make more sense in an eternal context than in a finite one.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I was thinking of the inflation event, though I don't have that book in front of me so I forget whether that came before or after the emergence of time.
I mean, how rational is it to rely on a theory of the creation of the universe that suspends the assumption of time?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Javert, Squicky's using a very narrow and specific definition of "rational" that you might not recognize
I'm pretty sure I'm not, you know.
I think he was referring to Tres, not you Squick.
The consequence of having multiple conversations at the same time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Rationality, in general, is somewhat against materialism as it is inconsistent with perceived reality...
I'm curious. What are you perceiving lately that you aren't perceiving with materia?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Let me be more precise: if you start with assumptions that accurately reflect reality, there are no rational arguments for God.
How do you know which starting assumptions accurately reflect reality?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I didn't say perceiving with. I was talking about what was perceived.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Anyway, the evidence seems to indicate that the universe that we know of and that currently exists had a beginning, the big bang, but that says nothing about what may have happened before.
I don't see any soft, much less hard evidence. Well to be accurate I think people look at the universe where everything we can observe has both a beginning and an end, and think EVERYTHING must therefore have it's beginning. But no matter how many trillions of things we observe with a beginning and an end that in of itself rightly make the universe something that is a new development.
I just think the concepts of God, creation, and people make more sense in an eternal context than in a finite one.
I don't think we're actually disagreeing on this, but I just want to be clear:
The two best examples of evidence that occur to me at the moment are the background radiation, which is theorized to be a remnant of the big bang, and the fact that everything is drifting away from everything else. Which implies that, if we reverse it, everything started in one spot.
It's nothing huge, but it seems to suggest a 'beginning' of a sort. I don't think it was the beginning in any ultimate sense. And I don't think the evidence is terribly conclusive on the subject, but it's the best explanation I've seen.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
pooka: extremely, if we have evidence that time is influenced by things that affect the shape of space, which we have a lot of evidence for, and evidence that the shape of space was radically different early in the universe.
We have no context for evaluating the probability that these events would happen, given the conditions just before they happened. It is currently impossible. It is illogical to conclude that they were improbable (or that they were probable), absent additional assumptions. There is just insufficient information. Now, we can talk about the probability they did happen given the information we have available to us, but that's very different.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The first depends on what you mean by observable.
Observable has a standard definition so I'll just use wikipedia's.
quote:In physics, particularly in quantum physics, a system observable is a property of the system state that can be determined by some sequence of physical operations.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The second depends on 1) the assumption that Occam's Razor is a reflection of reality, rather than a short-hand rule for a certain type of epistemology and 2) that events that aren't "observable" by the restrictive definition you'd need to use for the first part are not part of the life, the universe, and everything.
Occam's Razor is not meant to be a reflection of reality. It is meant to identify the best theory for the subset of reality that we currently have information on. This is an important distinction because it means we are looking for theories that best fit existing data. In other words, there may be existing theories that better model reality as a whole but that make assumptions that are not supported by any data. It's silly to put faith behind these beliefs because they aren't supported by existing evidence. A modern physics theory that fits this later example is string theory.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How do you know which starting assumptions accurately reflect reality?
I'm personally a fan of the scientific method.
-----
quote:I didn't say perceiving with. I was talking about what was perceived.
What are you perceiving that doesn't have electrons in it? Emotions have mass, dude.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:The two best examples of evidence that occur to me at the moment are the background radiation, which is theorized to be a remnant of the big bang, and the fact that everything is drifting away from everything else. Which implies that, if we reverse it, everything started in one spot.
Would there not be radiation were it not for a big bang?
I have only a passing understanding of everything in the universe is drifting further apart. Are we certain EVERYTHING is drifting further apart or are we certain EVERYTHING we can see with our telescopes is drifting further apart.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I mean, how rational is it to rely on a theory of the creation of the universe that suspends the assumption of time?
It may not be intuitive - very little about theoretical physics is - but I think it's rational.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To follow up on something related to what I'm talking about, lets look at a continuous number wheel with a spinner.
The probability of any particular number (as in, a place on the wheel) being landed on in a spin is zero. The probability of some number being landed on in a spin is one. So, after each spin, some number, which had a probability zero of being landed on before we made the spin, was landed upon.
Now, imagine the wheel divided into tiny slices, so each slice has a very, very small, but positive, probability of being landed on. Now imagine that we're looking at the wheel from a great distance and trying to determine which slice was landed on.
We can't be certain, because it is so far away. But by improving our instruments (perhaps a telescope? or bouncing a laser off and trying to catch the difference between the spinner and the background?) we can have greater and greater confidence in which slice was landed on.
So, beforehand, the probability of the particular number being landed on was zero, and the probability of the particular slice the number is in was tiny. Yet something did happen, and we can determine the slice (and thus, the approximate number) with potentially a very high degree of accuracy. Furthermore, no intervention was necessary to bring about this highly improbable particular event.
To make it even funkier, imagine that we came into existence after the spin was made, and we only come into existence if one of the tiny portions of the wheel was pointed at. Given that we are there, making the measurement, can we conclude that some other entity stopped the pointer in that region?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Observable has a standard definition so I'll just use wikipedia's.
Observable has many different definitions. You gave me one from a specific context.
quote:In physics, particularly in quantum physics,
This specific context does not encompass all of reality. This is important because my point was that, in order to make that statement work, you need to limit the scope of what you are talking about to defined subset of reality.
I'm not sure what your point about Occam's Razor is. We weren't talking about reality, but rather rational beliefs about reality.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:How do you know which starting assumptions accurately reflect reality?
I'm personally a fan of the scientific method.
That answer only pushes the question back one level. The scientific method justifies your claims only by using other starting assumptions to do so. How do you then know those starting assumptions reflect reality?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Would there not be radiation were it not for a big bang?
I have only a passing understanding of everything in the universe is drifting further apart. Are we certain EVERYTHING is drifting further apart or are we certain EVERYTHING we can see with our telescopes is drifting further apart.
As for the radiation: Don't know. I think (and I could be completely wrong) is that there seems to be a pervasive level of background radiation that is everywhere we have looked that doesn't seem to be coming from any specific source. Which suggests an explosion that sent this radiation everywhere. Again, that suggestion could be wrong.
For the drifting, I believe it is everything we can see. And since we can't make assumptions about evidence we don't have, it's reasonable to extrapolate from it and say that everything is drifting.
But it is, of course, tentative. Like all knowledge derived through the scientific method. If we come across evidence that contradicts our current evidence, then we'll reevaluate our theories.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Would there not be radiation were it not for a big bang?
quote:Perhaps the most conclusive (and certainly among the most carefully examined) piece of evidence for the Big Bang is the existence of an isotropic radiation bath that permeates the entire Universe known as the "cosmic microwave background" (CMB). The word "isotropic" means the same in all directions; the degree of anisotropy of the CMB is about one part in a thousand. In 1965, two young radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, almost accidentally discovered the CMB using a small, well-calibrated horn antenna. It was soon determined that the radiation was diffuse, emanated unifromly from all directions in the sky, and had a temperature of approximately 2.7 Kelvin (ie 2.7 degrees above absolute zero). Initially, they could find no satisfactory explanation for their observations, and considered the possibility that their signal may have been due to some undetermined systematic noise. They even considered the possibility that it was due to "a white dielectric substance" (ie pigeon droppings) in their horn!
However, it soon came to their attention through Robert Dicke and Jim Peebles of Princeton that this background radiation had in fact been predicted years earlier by George Gamow as a relic of the evolution of the early Universe. This background of microwaves was in fact the cooled remnant of the primeval fireball - an echo of the Big Bang.
If the universe was once very hot and dense, the photons and baryons would have formed a plasma, ie a gas of ionized matter coupled to the radiation through the constant scattering of photons off ions and electrons. As the universe expanded and cooled there came a point when the radiation (photons) decoupled from the matter - this happened about a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. That radiation cooled and is now at 2.7 Kelvin. The fact that the spectrum (see figure) of the radiation is almost exactly that of a "black body" (a physicists way of describing a perfect radiator) implies that it could not have had its origin through any prosaic means. This has led to the death of the steady state theory for example. In fact the CMB spectrum is a black body to better than 1% accuracy over more than a factor of 1000 in wavelength. This is a much more accurate black body than any we can make in the laboratory!
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: That answer only pushes the question back one level. The scientific method justifies your claims only by using other starting assumptions to do so. How do you then know those starting assumptions reflect reality?
We test them and see if they work.
From there you could argue that we can't know our senses reflect reality, which is why we have independent verification.
Back another level, we may all be brains in jars. But we have to assume that we exist as our senses tell us, or else we wouldn't have the incentive to do anything.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm personally a fan of the scientific method.
Which is based on non-rational assumptions.
quote:What are you perceiving that doesn't have electrons in it? Emotions have mass, dude.
No, they don't. The brain states may have mass, but assuming that the brain states aer equal to the emotion is just another assumption.
You keep begging the question. If materialism is true, then your proofs of materialism are true. But what you offer as proof relies on the very thing you are trying to prove.
It all comes down to cogito ergo sum. People perceive themselves as making choices, creating things. These perceptions have objective reality. What you have to offer is "No, they are delusional, based on how I assume reality works." but you have no rational reason to believe that reality necessarily works that way. It's a choice.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: so I don't know why you felt the need to be a jerk and accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
I suspect it's somewhat similar to the reason you felt the need to be a jerk and accuse me of having less religious faith than someone who sticks their fingers in their ears and goes "LaLaLa" whenever science says something that doesn't fit into their world-veiw.
I'm honestly sorry and surprised that I came across that way. I didn't mean to belittle or offend anyone and I was trying to use it as a classification along the lines of "big or small" not along the lines of "smart or dumb".
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Back another level, we may all be brains in jars. But we have to assume that we exist as our senses tell us, or else we wouldn't have the incentive to do anything.
I don't have the incentive to do anything.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How do you then know those starting assumptions reflect reality?
As I've said before, in other conversations, I'm comfortable with relying on the starting assumptions necessary for the scientific method. You try surviving in a world where you don't accept, for example, that effects have causes, and get back to me.
quote:No, they don't. The brain states may have mass, but assuming that the brain states aer equal to the emotion is just another assumption.
Char your brain into a powder and tell me how sad you feel about it. The assumption that emotions persist without a physical carrier is the assumption that defies observable reality; in truth, there is nothing observable which does not have a physical carrier. In other words, your claim is exactly false; the only observable reality is materialist, because the only things we're aware of observing -- and the only things which make us capable of observing them -- are material.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:The two best examples of evidence that occur to me at the moment are the background radiation, which is theorized to be a remnant of the big bang, and the fact that everything is drifting away from everything else. Which implies that, if we reverse it, everything started in one spot.
Would there not be radiation were it not for a big bang?
I have only a passing understanding of everything in the universe is drifting further apart. Are we certain EVERYTHING is drifting further apart or are we certain EVERYTHING we can see with our telescopes is drifting further apart.
The background radiation is of a very specific type, and in a distribution, as predicted by the Big Bang. No other more complex hypotheses have been put forth that can account for this radiation AND provide testable/observable predictions that the current model can't handle/predict wrongly.
In astrophysics, you last question is mostly redundant. We can see back almost to the big bang itself, thanks to red-shifting of light, and the fact that light runs at a fixed speed. The red shift is due to the very fabric of space stretching as light travels, and assuming we have very good values for the rate of expansion (which we do, although they aren't perfect) we only have to look at different spectra of light coming at us and see if they look like a closer object, but shifted red. We have a lot of evidence that this is the case, and so we can be pretty confident that it is happening, generally. Now, specifically, there are examples of this not happening (colliding galaxies and the like), due to the rather random structure of the universe.
To put it another way, when scientists talk about seeing "old stars", they often due this by looking at spectra readings that look exactly like star close to us' spectra, but all the values are shifted to the red. Red light has longer wavelengths than other light, which in turn means that space itself is expanding while the light is in transit (since no theory has successfully explained how light might stretch itself). Of course "expanding" naturally means the space between things are getting further apart.
There are additional nuance that I am aware of, but don't understand myself, but they only modify this explanations values, not the process itself.
-Bok
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:In physics, particularly in quantum physics,
This specific context does not encompass all of reality. This is important because my point was that, in order to make that statement work, you need to limit the scope of what you are talking about to defined subset of reality.
You picked out the least relevant part of the definition. That definition limits itself only in the sense that it limits itself to stuff that is possible. What on earth is so restricting about it?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The assumption that emotions persist without a physical carrier is the assumption that defies observable reality
Neccesary does not equal sufficient. This is basic epistemology.
If I smash your piano, you can't play music on it. That doesn't mean that the piano is equal to music.
quote:the only observable reality is materialist, because the only things we're aware of observing -- and the only things which make us capable of observing them -- are material.
Again, these are just assumptions.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:In other words, your claim is exactly false; the only observable reality is materialist, because the only things we're aware of observing -- and the only things which make us capable of observing them -- are material.
I haven't found that to be true, pointing back to human language as a phenomenon which defies material description. I mean, maybe someday we will be able to. But there are no models that allow it presently.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: so I don't know why you felt the need to be a jerk and accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
I suspect it's somewhat similar to the reason you felt the need to be a jerk and accuse me of having less religious faith than someone who sticks their fingers in their ears and goes "LaLaLa" whenever science says something that doesn't fit into their world-veiw.
I'm honestly sorry and surprised that I came across that way. I didn't mean to belittle or offend anyone and I was trying to use it as a classification along the lines of "big or small" not along the lines of "smart or dumb".
"Bigger" isn't really a fix, Threads. A person can have great faith without believing in a very narrow version of religion. People may believe different things; they don't believe the same things "less".
Someone isn't less faithful just because their beliefs are mainstream.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:We test them and see if they work.
From there you could argue that we can't know our senses reflect reality, which is why we have independent verification.
Back another level, we may all be brains in jars. But we have to assume that we exist as our senses tell us, or else we wouldn't have the incentive to do anything.
Here are some assumptions needed to perform the scientific method: 1. Assume your senses reflect reality, in every case that you observe something. 2. Assume that the senses of people independently verifying your own senses also reflect reality, in every case that you verify your assumptions. 3. Assume that what you observe happening in the present will continue happening in just the same way in the future. 4. Assume that there aren't variables that you are overlooking that would alter your conclusions. 5. Assume that cause and effect exist. 6. Assume that the model you are using to explain what you observe happening actually is true. (Example: You may observe evidence of continents moving, but you might be incorrect about what is causing them to move - maybe God is causing them to move, after all - or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.)
On top of this, also keep in mind that the scientific method is very limited in what sorts of questions it can directly answer. Most assumptions, such as Occam's Razor or "killing is bad" are completely beyond the scope of science, by the definition of the scientific method. Most applications of science rely not just on the science itself but also on countless more assumptions that cannot be proven by science.
So, I ask again, how do you know those assumptions reflect reality?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:Back another level, we may all be brains in jars. But we have to assume that we exist as our senses tell us, or else we wouldn't have the incentive to do anything.
I don't have the incentive to do anything.
And yet you posted. Something must have been the incentive for that action.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You picked out the least relevant part of the definition. That definition limits itself only in the sense that it limits itself to stuff that is possible. What on earth is so restricting about it?
I really don't understand this complaint. The definition is talking about physical systems, which is fine if we are limiting what we are talking about to physical systems, but I don't believe we are. These are not the only things possible.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:pointing back to human language as a phenomenon which defies material description
Can you elaborate on this?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
If we're going to talk about this then you really need to give me your definition of "great faith." To me, having greater faith means having more faith in the literal sense. Example: [to me] it requires more faith to believe the earth was created 6000 years ago then it does to believe that it was created 4 billion years ago.
Honestly, we're going to keep talking past each other unless we have a standard definition of faith. You claimed that someone can have "great faith without believing in a very narrow version of religion." I'm willing to accept that but I need to know how we can judge whether one person has more faith than another.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The definition is talking about physical systems, which is fine if we are limiting what we are talking about to physical systems, but I don't believe we are. These are not the only things possible.
But don't non-physical systems ultimately have to influence physical systems for them to be observable by any reasonable definition of observable?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I haven't found that to be true, pointing back to human language as a phenomenon which defies material description.
In which way would you say that language is not material?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:As I've said before, in other conversations, I'm comfortable with relying on the starting assumptions necessary for the scientific method. You try surviving in a world where you don't accept, for example, that effects have causes, and get back to me.
I couldn't survive in a world without believing in cause/effect, but I definitely could survive in a world without accepting Occam's Razor. I might even survive better...
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Squicky, PLEASE just give an example. Stop avoiding the question.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
We haven't been able to train computers to do it. :shrug: There are some indications of localization of function, but it's still pretty mysterious.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:Back another level, we may all be brains in jars. But we have to assume that we exist as our senses tell us, or else we wouldn't have the incentive to do anything.
I don't have the incentive to do anything.
And yet you posted. Something must have been the incentive for that action.
Yeah, I think posting in this thread at this point is an inaction for me. Action that would require incentive would be for me not to post and do my work.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But don't non-physical systems ultimately have to influence physical systems for them to be observable by any reasonable definition of observable?
No. That's only if you assume that observation can only be done by physical systems, which, again, is an unprovable assumption.
Threads, An example of what? I'm not trying to avoid anything. I'm pointing out that your positions always rely on non-rational, unprovable assumptions.
edit: But, if you tell me what you are looking for from me, I can try to accomodate you.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Another example of language being non-material is how easy it is to misinterpret what people say. That sort of think happens much more rarely with other senses, unless you're at the Exploratorium or something.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Here are some assumptions needed to perform the scientific method: 1. Assume your senses reflect reality, in every case that you observe something.
Wrong. Assume your senses are somewhat reliable. When your senses conflict with other peoples' senses, you must investigate.
quote: 2. Assume that the senses of people independently verifying your own senses also reflect reality, in every case that you verify your assumptions.
Wrong. Don't assume. Investigate to see if other people verify your senses. If they do, you're closer to determining reality.
quote: 3. Assume that what you observe happening in the present will continue happening in just the same way in the future.
Demonstrably wrong. The whole point of science is to keep looking and try to prove your assumptions wrong. You may extrapolate that it will continue if there is no evidence to the contrary, but you continue looking for evidence to disprove your theory.
quote:4. Assume that there aren't variables that you are overlooking that would alter your conclusions.
Wrong. You keep looking. See above.
quote:5. Assume that cause and effect exist.
Wrong. You come to whether or not cause and effect exist through the scientific method.
quote:6. Assume that the model you are using to explain what you observe happening actually is true. (Example: You may observe evidence of continents moving, but you might be incorrect about what is causing them to move - maybe God is causing them to move, after all - or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.)
Wrong. You come up with the best answer given the current evidence. That is 'truth' of a kind, but not the absolute truth you are implying.
quote:On top of this, also keep in mind that the scientific method is very limited in what sorts of questions it can directly answer.
Really? Why?
quote:Most assumptions, such as Occam's Razor or "killing is bad" are completely beyond the scope of science, by the definition of the scientific method.
We can't determine 'good or bad', but we can determine 'harmful or beneficial', which I think is close enough to what you're implying.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: We haven't been able to train computers to do it. :shrug: There are some indications of localization of function, but it's still pretty mysterious.
We also haven't been able to get computers to accurately model weather. The problem in both cases appears to be one of complexity and our simulations of each are improving as computing power, as well as our understanding of the variables involved, have increased.
We have not yet run into anything that suggests non-material influences.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:1. Assume your senses reflect reality, in every case that you observe something. 2. Assume that the senses of people independently verifying your own senses also reflect reality, in every case that you verify your assumptions. 3. Assume that what you observe happening in the present will continue happening in just the same way in the future. 4. Assume that there aren't variables that you are overlooking that would alter your conclusions. 5. Assume that cause and effect exist. 6. Assume that the model you are using to explain what you observe happening actually is true.
#1 and #2 actually cancel each other out. It is not necessary to assume that your senses always reflect reality, or that everyone else's senses reflect reality. It is merely necessary to assume that senses are capable of reflecting reality.
#3 and #5 can be more easily consolidated to: assume that exact reproduction of a cause will produce an identical effect.
#4 and #6 aren't actually necessary for the method, either. The assumption of fallibility and the increased reliability of repetition are built into the model.
So you've got: 1) Identical causes produce identical effects. 2) Observation can accurately depict some level of reality.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Pooka, your arguments for language being non-material are: it's complex; and we haven't been able to teach computers to do it.
I would argue that that's really the same argument, which amounts to "it's complex." Are all complex things immaterial?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Threads, An example of what? I'm not trying to dance around anything. I'm pointing out that your positions always rely on non-rational, unprovable assumptions.
Name something that exists but cannot be observed under my definition. If you can't do that then I don't see how my definition is "restrictive".
Your last sentence has me a little worried because I wonder if we are talking about different things. I am talking about theories that model our current understanding of reality. All of our theories make assumptions and many of them may turn out incorrect in the end, but the assumptions themselves are not irrational. We can only use the knowledge we have.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: We haven't been able to train computers to do it. :shrug: There are some indications of localization of function, but it's still pretty mysterious.
We also haven't been able to get computers to accurately model weather. The problem in both cases appears to be one of complexity and our simulations of each are improving as computing power, as well as our understanding of the variables involved, have increased.
We have not yet run into anything that suggests non-material influences.
That's a very interesting comparison. I'll have to think about it some more. But I think "non-material influences" isn't what I was going for, if you are talking about supernatural events controlling the weather. I don't think language is controlled in a supernatural way, apart from the occasional speaking in tongues that people claim.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:No. That's only if you assume that observation can only be done by physical systems, which, again, is an unprovable assumption.
Wait a second. Are you just arguing that it's possible that something exists outside of the material world which only interacts with other things outside the material world and which, therefore, has no effect on the material world.
I grant that you are correct that such is possible, but how does it matter if such a thing "exists" if it is so entirely irrelevant to us?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: If we're going to talk about this then you really need to give me your definition of "great faith." To me, having greater faith means having more faith in the literal sense. Example: [to me] it requires more faith to believe the earth was created 6000 years ago then it does to believe that it was created 4 billion years ago.
No it doesn't.
Why should it? Just because it is (in my opinion anyway) weird? Because it is contrary to what science teachers say(if they are allowed to) but in line with what Sunday School teachers say?
quote:
Honestly, we're going to keep talking past each other unless we have a standard definition of faith. You claimed that someone can have "great faith without believing in a very narrow version of religion." I'm willing to accept that but I need to know how we can judge whether one person has more faith than another.
I don't know that we can except, perhaps, by observing how they live their lives.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I'm willing to accept that but I need to know how we can judge whether one person has more faith than another.
Why is doing that necessary at all?
I don't think it's even possible for someone nonomniscient to determine.
It's like trying to measure love.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I will say that when it comes to weather, I believe the fact that the earth is so often habitable is another miracle. I mean, sure there are parts of it that just aren't, but humans are pretty fragile creatures and this atomosphere that we live in is pretty remarkable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:
quote:Most assumptions, such as Occam's Razor or "killing is bad" are completely beyond the scope of science, by the definition of the scientific method.
We can't determine 'good or bad', but we can determine 'harmful or beneficial', which I think is close enough to what you're implying.
Really? How can you determine that killing a particular human being in a particular situation is harmful or beneficial using only the scientific method.
Let's assume that the state of our scientific understanding of people is such that we can predict what they will do within a useful margin of error. Moreover, assume that we can determine what the effects of killing that human being will be (X people live who would have otherwise died, Y people die who would have otherwise lived, etc.) using the scientific method, again to a useful margin of error.
Even with that, the scientific method can't tell you if it is "harmful" or "beneficial" to kill that person without introducing some premise not subject to the scientific method.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
This is why we need to agree on a definition of faith. I use faith to mean belief in something that is not based on data. That is why "it requires more faith to believe the earth was created 6000 years ago then it does to believe that it was created 4 billion years ago."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Threads, I think we may be talking about very different things. I'll readily agree that if we're talking about scientific theories, materialism is a good starting assumption. My beef is people claiming that reality must necessarily be materialistic.
---
MattP,
quote:Wait a second. Are you just arguing that it's possible that something exists outside of the material world which only interacts with other things outside the material world and which, therefore, has no effect on the material world.
No. I didn't say anything like this.
---
Let me stake out some territory, as it may make what I'm saying clearer. I choose to believe that I have free will. Thus, there is some, non-material aspect of myself that raises my decision-making above only material causes.
If this thing exists, it has an obvious effect on the physical world - although that effect is really more of a meta-effect.
At our current level of understanding, there is no valid rational way to say that it does or does not exist. Those beliefs come down to what you choose.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Really? How can you determine that killing a particular human being in a particular situation is harmful or beneficial using only the scientific method.
In science, "harmful" depends on context. It's not a moral measurement, it just means that, for instance, a given mutation makes an individual less likely to reproduce and pass on its genes.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I would think that any measurment of faith would be more related to how important said faith was to the person and how central to how they live their life, rather than how improbable their beliefs.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:No. That's only if you assume that observation can only be done by physical systems, which, again, is an unprovable assumption.
Wait a second. Are you just arguing that it's possible that something exists outside of the material world which only interacts with other things outside the material world and which, therefore, has no effect on the material world.
I grant that you are correct that such is possible, but how does it matter if such a thing "exists" if it is so entirely irrelevant to us?
The idea that a non-material thing is irrelevant is interesting.
So if you have two vases, and one is ugly and the other is pretty, does it matter? If they took the same material, effort, and energy to make, they are in themselves equal, but the aesthetic impact is different. So that is creating matter, which goes against one of the laws of thermodynamics -- If one wishes to argue that aesthetic impact is material - I realize you have not necessarily done so.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I will say that when it comes to weather, I believe the fact that the earth is so often habitable is another miracle. I mean, sure there are parts of it that just aren't, but humans are pretty fragile creatures and this atomosphere that we live in is pretty remarkable.
How do you define "so often habitable"?
We live on a planet that is 3/4 water. Of the land, great portions of it are uninhabitable because they are too cold or too hot.
I think it's an amazing thing that we've been able to adapt ourselves to live in such conditions. But I'm not sure it should be called 'miraculous'.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The idea that a non-material thing is irrelevant is interesting.
I said a non-material thing which did not effect the material world was irrelevant. Your vase, your perception of its aesthetic, and your response to that perception are all very material. Even if you want to assume that some element of your appreciation of that vase was non-material, it's part of a cause/effect pattern that includes the material world at several points.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:No. That's only if you assume that observation can only be done by physical systems, which, again, is an unprovable assumption.
Wait a second. Are you just arguing that it's possible that something exists outside of the material world which only interacts with other things outside the material world and which, therefore, has no effect on the material world.
I grant that you are correct that such is possible, but how does it matter if such a thing "exists" if it is so entirely irrelevant to us?
The idea that a non-material thing is irrelevant is interesting.
So if you have a vase, and one is ugly and the other is pretty, does it matter? If they took the same material, effort, and energy to make, they are in themselves equal, but the aesthetic impact is different. So that is creating matter, which goes against one of the laws of thermodynamics -- If one wishes to argue that aesthetic impact is material - I realize you have not necessarily done so.
MattP is not talking specifically about physical objects. Beauty is part of the material world because it is a feeling created in our brain.
EDIT: Matt beat me to it anyways and gave a better explanation.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I choose to believe that I have free will. Thus, there is some, non-material aspect of myself that raises my decision-making above only material causes.
I don't think your second sentence is a necessary consequence of your first. I'd agree that it's a likely consequence, but I think the possibility of free will still exists in a materialistic worldview.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
pooka: the question is less how likely it is there is is someplace we can survive (which we are only just now starting to be able to estimate), but, given we are here and observing, how likely it is the weather arose from natural causes. And the first question (even though we're getting closer to answering it) isn't really relevant. The weather was here first. The right question (of that category is), given the weather here, what is the likelihood something like us would be able to evolve? That seems quite high, given this planet is in the life belt.
If you haven't yet, read my post on the previous page about the number wheel with a spinner to get an idea for how the difference matters. It is possible to make anything look improbable when you construct it in a way that's really talking about a situation that isn't important.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, it was just something that occured to me when my car was nearly blown off the road one day, that there's no reason that sort of thing shouldn't happen more often.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Really? How can you determine that killing a particular human being in a particular situation is harmful or beneficial using only the scientific method.
In science, "harmful" depends on context. It's not a moral measurement, it just means that, for instance, a given mutation makes an individual less likely to reproduce and pass on its genes.
That was kind of my point - science can't handle questions that rely on moral premises, although science is often necessary for acting morally.
Changing the question from "good or bad" to "harmful or beneficial" is not "close enough" to what Tresopax was implying. It's a change to an entirely different kind of question, one necessitated by the limitations of science.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Really? How can you determine that killing a particular human being in a particular situation is harmful or beneficial using only the scientific method.
In science, "harmful" depends on context. It's not a moral measurement, it just means that, for instance, a given mutation makes an individual less likely to reproduce and pass on its genes.
That was kind of my point - science can't handle questions that rely on moral premises, although science is often necessary for acting morally.
Changing the question from "good or bad" to "harmful or beneficial" is not "close enough" to what Tresopax was implying. It's a change to an entirely different kind of question, one necessitated by the limitations of science.
My point was that you have to understand harm and benefit before you can jump to good and bad.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I read the number wheel post. I'm pretty sure I understood it, but it doesn't really prove things one way or the other.
But you'll notice my observations are consistently praising the conditions that make human life amenable. So why does the bible begin not with the creation of man and then all other objects to suit him, but end with the creation of man? I don't expect it to be persuasive, but I do find it very interesting.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:That was kind of my point - science can't handle questions that rely on moral premises, although science is often necessary for acting morally.
Well yeah. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. That's why it's crazy to "blame" science for eugenics or atomic war or any other application of knowledge or technology.
The scientific method can be used to examine morality - it can tell us why we consider certain things to be "good" or "bad" and can suggest ways to increase "good" and decrease "bad" if we have enough knowledge of the variables involved.
But we still have to define "good" and "bad" first.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So why does the bible begin not with the creation of man and then all other objects to suit him, but end with the creation of man?
Because it's in chronological order and that's how we're accustomed to creating and consuming narratives? The "good" part of most movies and books is near the end, no?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
What definitions of "material" and "materialism are being used here? Maybe I've missed it after reading through this thread, but it appears that two definitions may be in play here, the one being a more philisophical construct, while the other one being a more moral construct.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't think your second sentence is a necessary consequence of your first. I'd agree that it's a likely consequence, but I think the possibility of free will still exists in a materialistic worldview.
If you grant the existence of some class of entities that are for some reason not completely affected by causality, I guess, but that's seems like those conditions would put them more or less outside the material world anyway.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
In the question of materialism, I am not treating with morals, though I guess it's possible that we arrived here via that route. Tom said that emotions have mass. I disagree.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Even with that, the scientific method can't tell you if it is "harmful" or "beneficial" to kill that person without introducing some premise not subject to the scientific method.
Are we assuming that it is possible for everything to be known?
------
quote:Tom said that emotions have mass. I disagree.
Electrons have a known mass. Which emotion are you feeling without electrons?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My point was that you have to understand harm and benefit before you can jump to good and bad.
I agree that you have to do that. But you still have to jump there, and that jump isn't possible bases solely on the scientific method. This was Tres's point to which you were responding: "X is bad" is beyond the scope of science.
quote:But we still have to define "good" and "bad" first.
Yep. And science alone is insufficient to do so, although it is highly necessary for any definition of good or bad with practical import.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Electrons have a known mass. Which emotion are you feeling without electrons?
Again, necessary does not equal sufficient. Just because material things are necessary to feel something doesn't mean that feeling something is completely material.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are we assuming that it is possible for everything to be known?
Tom, I stated exactly what I'm assuming is known in the hypothetical itself. If there's something else you'd like to be assumed to be known in analyzing it, let me know.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:My point was that you have to understand harm and benefit before you can jump to good and bad.
I agree that you have to do that. But you still have to jump there, and that jump isn't possible bases solely on the scientific method. This was Tres's point to which you were responding: "X is bad" is beyond the scope of science.
quote:But we still have to define "good" and "bad" first.
Yep. And science alone is insufficient to do so, although it is highly necessary for any definition of good or bad with practical import.
Science alone is insufficient. But when you leave science, you move onto critical thinking, which is a large part of science. Critical thinking is sufficient to define good and bad.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Electrons have a known mass. Which emotion are you feeling without electrons?
Again, necessary does not equal sufficient. Just because material things are necessary to feel something doesn't mean that feeling something is completely material.
The fact that the material world can create and manipulate emotions implies that emotions are completely material. If it's a part of the material world then it is material by definition.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The fact that the material world can create and manipulate emotions implies that emotions are completely material.
Are you saying that the material world can do this by itself or that it is a necessary part of the process? Because the latter appears to be true, but the former is just another unprovable assumption.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The number wheel post isn't about proving anything, it is about underscoring the difficulty of saying anything about the probability of certain sorts of events.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Squick, is it seriously your contention that there exists some sort of API for the spirit world?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Science alone is insufficient. But when you leave science, you move onto critical thinking, which is a large part of science. Critical thinking is sufficient to define good and bad.
Critical thinking is a large part of other epistemologies as well. Science gets no special claim to it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Squick, is it seriously your contention that there exists some sort of API for the spirit world?
I don't know where you got this from, but no, that is not my contention.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which epistemologies support critical thinking? Once you add critical thinking to a non-scientific epistemology, what differentiates it from science?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:The fact that the material world can create and manipulate emotions implies that emotions are completely material.
Are you saying that the material world can do this by itself or that it is a necessary part of the process? Because the latter appears to be true, but the former is just another unprovable assumption.
Supernatural implies something outside of the natural laws. However, the natural laws are defined by what is possible within the natural world. In the natural world it is possible to create a physical entity that has emotions and manipulate those emotions in any desirable way. We can create emotions in the natural world so those emotions are part of the natural world by extension.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I don't think your second sentence is a necessary consequence of your first. I'd agree that it's a likely consequence, but I think the possibility of free will still exists in a materialistic worldview.
If you grant the existence of some class of entities that are for some reason not completely affected by causality, I guess, but that's seems like those conditions would put them more or less outside the material world anyway.
I don't think outcomes must necessarily be deterministic in the brain, which may be capable of stimulating itself absent external inputs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You mean "deterministic" in the big rather than the small sense, right, twinky?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:We can create emotions in the natural world so those emotions are part of the natural world by extension.
Right. That's what I presented as the latter option. It is part of the natural world. No problems with that.
That it is only part of the natural world is more problematic. The only way that this is necessarily true is if you start out assuming that it is only part of the natural world.
Also,
quote:In the natural world it is possible to create a physical entity that has emotions and manipulate those emotions in any desirable way.
Really? Where are you getting that information from?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't think outcomes must necessarily be deterministic in the brain, which may be capable of stimulating itself absent external inputs.
I'm not sure why that would contradict determinism. It's not limited to mere external stimulus leading to a response. I don't see anything that challenges the idea that brains are formed and function fully subject to causality.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Man, this thread moves fast.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: And to set things at right, I'll point out that the effect of Western philosophy on China has been completely poisonous.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Everyone was considering whether China (or more broadly, Eastern thought) had an effect on Western philosophy. I was turning it around and saying what is the West's impact on China? And the most prominent thing that came to mind was Marx and communism.
I was then acknowledging that I was just doing this to barb people for assuming their own culture to be at the center of everything.
Everyone? At least in my case I was asking TomD about the subject *precisely* because I do know more about the impact of Western ideas on China rather than vice versa, and from the Chinese perspective too. Thus this exchange *really * confused me when I first read it.
Mind if I barb you for assuming that I assumed that Western culture was the centre of everything, even though it isn't actually my culture?
As for the first quote, I think that summarizing the "effect of Western philosophy on China has been completely poisonous" is rather simplistic. Some effects were massively disastrous, some effects were good.
I daresay the average Chinese person is much better off when comparing modern China with some sort of hypothetical China where China never was heavily affected, at least in measurable ways such as poverty, access to health care and food, and literacy. Almost certainly, if we compare modern China to say, 1800 China.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Just as the Mongol Hordes came from the East and blew apart the West's concepts of superiority, the Europeans came from the West and blew open China's doors of ethnocentrism and elitism.
To add context, they didn't blow up doors. They blew up doors AND ships, forts, Summer Palaces, and people trying to defend the above. Heck, they didn't just blow open China's doors to those two, they also blew open the doors protecting people from drug dealing foreigners. Talk about being on the wrong side of the "War on Drugs." Literally Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:In the natural world it is possible to create a physical entity that has emotions and manipulate those emotions in any desirable way.
Really? Where are you getting that information from?
The physical entity (humans) is created through a biological process. Human emotions are caused by certain chemicals in the brain and can be manipulated with various drugs.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You mean "deterministic" in the big rather than the small sense, right, twinky?
Yes, I do. Good point. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The physical entity (humans) is created through a biological process.
Can you prove that the creation of a human being who can feel emotions is solely a material process or is that another assumption?
quote:Human emotions are caused by certain chemicals in the brain and can be manipulated with various drugs.
Emotions are affected by the action of neurotransmitters but we certainly don't have the ability to "manipulate those emotions in any desirable way."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For goodness sake China's name in Chinese still means, "Center Country/Kingdom."
Meh, there is also the fact that we still regularly call you a "gweilo" and it still takes me a fair amount of time to think of a politically correct (and much less popular) alternative. Then again, it will be a sad day when Cantonese starts becoming politically correct
[ November 28, 2007, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Critical thinking is sufficient to define good and bad.
When it comes down to it, morality is 100% subjective. I personally subscribe to the theory you presented earlier about equating harm/benefit with bad/good. But this is a choice. With atheism, there is no objective source telling us that human life and positive social interactions are what we should strive for. Those are values that I have based on nothing more than my preference for them. Critical thinking will not help us arrive at the same "good" and "bad" unless we share the same subjective values.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:Critical thinking is sufficient to define good and bad.
When it comes down to it, morality is 100% subjective. I personally subscribe to the theory you presented earlier about equating harm/benefit with bad/good. But this is a choice. With atheism, there is no objective source telling us that human life and positive social interactions are what we should strive for. Those are values that I have based on nothing more than my preference for them. Critical thinking will not help us arrive at the same "good" and "bad" unless we share the same subjective values.
I never said it would lead us all to the same good and bad definitions. This is why we have society. (Or one of the reasons why we should, anyway.)
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:The physical entity (humans) is created through a biological process.
Can you prove that the creation of a human being who can feel emotions is solely a material process or is that another assumption?
The burden of proof is actually on you in this case because my "assumption" is the logical default. I'm not going to cop out though
Defining terms such as natural and supernatural is extremely tough, so I hope my point comes across even if my definitions are subpar. I would argue that there is a one-way interaction between a supernatural process and the natural world. In other words, a supernatural process can directly affect the natural world but the natural world can only indirectly affect a supernatural process. An example of such a supernatural process would be a common version of God. God can directly manipulate the natural world, however the natural world can only indirectly affect God. Human actions can prompt Him to do something but they cannot make him do something. A natural process cannot control a supernatural process because otherwise that supernatural process would be natural.
No features of humans fit the definition of a supernatural process. Even though we have no flipping clue as to what creates consciousness we do know that conscious beings arise through processes in the natural world and that consciousness can be manipulated through other natural processes. In other words, there is a two-way interaction between consciousness (which is necessary to feel emotion) and the rest of the natural processes. This makes consciousness (which is necessary to feel emotion) a natural process by default (a different default than the burden of proof default). While it's certainly possible that a soul or something else could be necessary for our existence, it would be irrelevant unless we could detect it. The parts of us that interact with the natural world (in other words, all aspects of human beings that have been observed) do not the criteria for a supernatural process.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Human emotions are caused by certain chemicals in the brain and can be manipulated with various drugs.
Emotions are affected by the action of neurotransmitters but we certainly don't have the ability to "manipulate those emotions in any desirable way."
I didn't mean it that literally. Theoretically we can do it and that's all that matters for this discussion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattB: This is of course, reminiscent of the way God interacted with the children of Israel in the Old Testament.
Or at least, it's reminiscent of how Christians read those interactions.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For goodness sake China's name in Chinese still means, "Center Country/Kingdom."
Meh, there is also the fact that we still regularly call you a "gweilo" and it still takes me a fair amount of time to think of a politically correct (and much less popular) alternative. Then again, it will be a sad day when Cantonese starts becoming politically correct
Well that is just Cantonese bluntness, in Taiwan I was regularly called "ah dou gah," a blanket term for foreigners, which in Fukinese means, "Big Nose." In mandarin the standard word for foreigner is, "Wai Guo Ren," which is basically, "Outside Country Person."
I often pointed out to kids 10 years old or younger that I had lived in China longer than them so I was justified in calling them foreigners, they always found that hilarious. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Mormon scripture does actually say that spirit is a "refined" form of matter. I don't know if that means energy or something different. But I don't think emotions are in themselves spiritual anyway, if one takes as a definition a mental state producing a physical response.
So what is the materialist view on free will, or the dignity of a human life apart from one's abilities?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There IS no official materialist position on these. But my personal reaction is as follows:
1) You have free will, in the sense that you are the combination of stimuli that produce a reaction in you. When you react to something, even if that reaction is indeed predictable based on all the appropriate inputs, "you" are still acting freely because "you" -- as a self -- are really just a necessary fiction, anyway. Once you grant that selfhood only functions in an internal context, it's pretty easy to allocate "will" to that context as well. Things may be externally deterministic, but that doesn't invalidate the internal process.
2) I'm not sure what you mean about the "dignity" of life as opposed to, say, the value or sanctity of life.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Critical thinking is sufficient to define good and bad.
What do you mean exactly by critical thinking?
I would probably consider critical thinking to be something that entails using logic, and logic in turn is based on assumptions. So you can't really do critical thinking without starting with some assumptions. And that still leaves us with the question of how we know those starting assumptions accurately reflect reality.
In other words, you can't just start thinking and come up with an understanding of good and bad. You have to ground that critical thinking in some sort of assumptions.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Critical thinking is sufficient to define good and bad.
What do you mean exactly by critical thinking?
I would probably consider critical thinking to be something that entails using logic, and logic in turn is based on assumptions. So you can't really do critical thinking without starting with some assumptions. And that still leaves us with the question of how we know those starting assumptions accurately reflect reality.
In other words, you can't just start thinking and come up with an understanding of good and bad. You have to ground that critical thinking in some sort of assumptions.
Um...ok. So what?
And I certainly can just start thinking and come up with an understanding of good and bad. It may not match up with yours, and it may not be a 'good' understanding, but I can certainly do it.
More comes from using my understanding in the real world and discussing my understanding with other people who have come up with their own understanding.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How do your suppose that is different from how people make faith decisions?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The key difference is the level of complexity of the assumptions necessary.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How do your suppose that is different from how people make faith decisions?
Do you mean making a decision using faith?
Well, I suppose it is different because you don't have to sit and think about it. You can sit and think about it, and I'm sure many if not most theists do. But you don't have to think about it.
The answer is given to you and you accept it. There's no critical thinking necessary.
At least, that's how making decisions on faith seems to me. As always, correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
At least for me, you are wrong. I was not given answers. I reached some answers and then recognized that other people (both present and throughout history) had reached similar answers. And I keep thinking about and refining or changing those answers.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No kidding. To quote from the study guide for the class I led last night, "Faith doesn't have the answers: faith raises questions."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yup. The answers always lead to more interesting questions. (That why we call the "mysteries").
(That last part was a bit of a joke.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Javert:
Can you specify what questions you think people use faith to answer?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Can you specify what questions you think people use faith to answer?
"Should I vote for or against a constitutional ban on gay marriage?"
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Javert:
Can you specify what questions you think people use faith to answer?
"What is moral and immoral?"
"Is there a god? And if there is, which one/what kind of god is it?"
"Is there an afterlife?"
Now, those are questions that I know some people use faith to answer. This doesn't mean that you can only use faith to answer them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Matt,
My faith would indeed inform my thinking on that*. And I would have to, according to my religious beliefs, vote against such a ban.
*gay marriage - to make it clear since there was an intervening post.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Matt,
My faith would indeed inform my thinking on that*. And I would have to, according to my religious beliefs, vote against such a ban.
*gay marriage - to make it clear since there was an intervening post.
I just want to be clear, I've never said or believed that just because you believe something on faith that the answer you land on is necessarily wrong.
It's just that, using faith, you can technically come to any conclusion, so it doesn't seem to be terribly good at determining truth.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:My faith would indeed inform my thinking on that*. And I would have to, according to my religious beliefs, vote against such a ban.
Sure, but many people do things that are apparently objectively harmful, such as preventing gay marriage, for reasons of faith. Most of the people I know that are against gay marriage are against it for purely religious and/or other irrational (i.e. "eww, gross!") reasons.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well...I suppose that it depends on your initial assumptions.
edit: the above was to javert.
Matt,
People come to different conclusions. And, again, the base assumptions may be different. And, as was mentioned earlier, for some people, "faith" isn't about seeking your own answers. And sometimes, faith can be used as a justification for doing what you want to do.
[ November 29, 2007, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well...I suppose that it depends on your initial assumptions.
Exactly. If you assume that God exists and that He is the ultimate authority on morality, and that He clearly communicates His desire for you to do things to affect that morality, then you will act accordingly, regardless of what He communicates to you, whether it's denial of gay marriage or the murder of your children.
That's why the initial assumptions of religion can lead to any conclusion. Once you posit a supernatural entity with intent and authority to influence human events, virtually anything can be justified as being the will of that entity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Matt, "clearly communicates his desire" is tricky. I think that very broad concepts are "clear" and then the specifics require a good deal of digging and examination.
For example, the broad concept that God loves all of us seems clear to me. God's position on gay marriage is not so clear. I have to reason that out given my experience, the experience of others, and weighed against that initial broad concept.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:He clearly communicates His desire for you to do things to affect that morality, then you will act accordingly, regardless of what He communicates to you,...
Maybe I read this wrong but it sounds like you just said that, "If I believe God clearly reveals his morality to me then I will act according to that mandate regardless of what God may say in the future to me."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Maybe I read this wrong but it sounds like you just said that, "If I believe God clearly reveals his morality to me then I will act according to that mandate regardless of what God may say in the future to me."
I meant that no matter how horrible his instructions may appear to be, you will follow them because you believe that he is the only arbiter of morality.
I don't remember if "Thou shalt not kill" occurred before or after "Abraham, sacrifice your son to me", but I don't think it matters. In the end, what God says goes, right?
Edit: OK, I do remember which came first, but the point is that even within the Bible, morality is relative to the desires of God at any given time. Attempting to sacrifice your child would seem universally wrong to us, even Christians, if it weren't for the story of Abraham. It doesn't matter that God didn't let Abraham go through with it, because Abraham had to be willing to complete the act to show his obedience. If Abraham was wrong, he wouldn't have known it until after he'd killed his son.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:He clearly communicates His desire for you to do things to affect that morality, then you will act accordingly, regardless of what He communicates to you,...
Maybe I read this wrong but it sounds like you just said that, "If I believe God clearly reveals his morality to me then I will act according to that mandate regardless of what God may say in the future to me."
I think what he means is "I will act according to that mandate, regardless of what that mandate is."
Essentially, we think not killing someone is moral. But tomorrow, god could say killing people is fine.
If your morality is derived from faith in god and his morality, then what's to stop you from going and killing people as long as you believe that's what god wants?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What do you guys mean when you write, "God says"?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Maybe I read this wrong but it sounds like you just said that, "If I believe God clearly reveals his morality to me then I will act according to that mandate regardless of what God may say in the future to me."
I don't remember if "Thou shalt not kill" occurred before or after "Moses, sacrifice your son to me", but I don't think it matters. In the end, what God says goes, right?
I think you meant, "Abraham sacrifice your son to me." And that happened before Moses. But your larger point of what God says goes is right. But then again, how could it be otherwise? If God showed up and REALLY told you to do something, how could you not do it if your goal is to be happy? But besides that I really don't think it's that simple. In my case even if you believe God clearly speaks to men, that does not mean you neccesarily 100% understand God's true purpose behind a communique. If I thought I heard God saying to me, "Hey man, I changed my mind, do whatever the hell you want." I'd seriously question the message, and compare it to observations I've made my entire life about the nature of God.
If God said, "Vote for a constitutional ammendment that bans gay marriage," I would seriously consider why he would ask something like that of me. I'd probably pray many times for confirmation, as well as a rationale. So far I've yet to be commanded to do something and had God say, "Just do it, don't ask questions!"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If your morality is derived from faith in god and his morality, then what's to stop you from going and killing people as long as you believe that's what god wants?
The real question might be closer to "What's to stop you from believing that that's what God wants?"
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What do you guys mean when you write, "God says"?
Either what you interpret in your scripture or if you believe that god speaks to you.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think you meant, "Abraham sacrifice your son to me." And that happened before Moses.
Yeah, I fixed that.
quote:If God showed up and REALLY told you to do something, how could you not do it if your goal is to be happy?
That depends on what happiness means. Would I rather be happy and kill my son, or be unhappy and let him live? What is more honorable?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:If God showed up and REALLY told you to do something, how could you not do it if your goal is to be happy?
I value my own morals above my happiness.
Of course, if god really wanted it done, he could just force me, so the issue would probably be moot.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well...I believe that scripture is more correctly understood as "certain people wrote down their translation of stories that other people wrote down, tha had been passed down through oral tradition about what they thought God said..." (even more complicated than that but you get the idea)
The manifestation of God that speaks directly to me would be what I would call the Holy Spirit. It is generally very difficult to distinguish that "voice" from my own. I'm not sure what the difference is (or whether there even is a difference) between that voice and my own "best" self voice.
So, if I thought I was hearing voices telling me to go and kill someone I would (if I were sane) weigh that against my experience (and that of others) of God and dismiss it. Or seek medical help. Or look for hidden speakers. I would not assume it was God.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Of course, if god really wanted it done, he could just force me, so the issue would probably be moot.
It depends on what you believe God's nature to be.
Personally I don't think he could.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Well...I believe that scripture is more correctly understood as "certain people wrote down stories than had been passed down through oral tradition about what they thought God said..."
I agree with you, however our interpretation is not a universal one. The idea that God abhors homosexuality and that one must prevent gay marriage to be true to Christianity is a pervasive one. The Mormon church has explicitly endorsed a gay marriage ban, and most evangelicals organizations have as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Threads, I read the article. My morality is not based on a fear of punishment but instead on knowing that God wants good for me (and everyone else) and trying to act accordingly.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The fact that some religious views are not as scary as others doesn't change the fact that there is no objective means of determine which ones are correct. As long as we accept faith as a valid epistemology, we give license to any conclusion that faith may produce.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Well...I believe that scripture is more correctly understood as "certain people wrote down stories than had been passed down through oral tradition about what they thought God said..."
I agree with you, however our interpretation is not a universal one. The idea that God abhors homosexuality and that one must prevent gay marriage to be true to Christianity is a pervasive one. The Mormon church has explicitly endorsed a gay marriage ban, and most evangelicals organizations have as well.
Yup. My own Church has some issue with it as well. I think they are wrong.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It seems to me that any epistemology can be [mis]used to produce conclusions that we are not willing to license.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
The purpose was to explain that morals such as "don't kill" do not come from God but are inherent characteristics of most human beings.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: The fact that some religious views are not as scary as others doesn't change the fact that there is no objective means of determine which ones are correct. As long as we accept faith as a valid epistemology, we give license to any conclusion that faith may produce.
No we don't. We can question their assumptions and the conclusions they draw from them. We can test their conclusions against their assumptions and what evidence we do have and either agree or disagree. Or think that they are nuts.
We certainly don't have to allow them to do demonstrable harm.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Threads, why do you think they are inherent characteristics of most human beings?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The fact that some religious views are not as scary as others doesn't change the fact that there is no objective means of determine which ones are correct. As long as we accept faith as a valid epistemology, we give license to any conclusion that faith may produce.
And yet we've established that there's no objective means outside faith to establish morality, either. So what exactly is the point of calling out this particular form of "un-objective" moral reasoning as opposed to the the other forms?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It seems to me that any epistemology can be [mis]used to produce conclusions that we are not willing to license.
True, but at least with materialistic epistemologies, we can independently examine the results. Also, materialistic epistemologies are not prescriptive. We have to take it upon ourselves to decide the correct course of action, given the available data. The scientific method would never produce the result "massacre everyone in this city except for the women - you can keep them for yourselves."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The scientific method would never produce the result "massacre everyone in this city except for the women - you can keep them for yourselves."
I think you underestimate people's imaginations and how they could [mis]use the scientific method.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:And yet we've established that there's no objective means outside faith to establish morality, either. So what exactly is the point of calling out this particular form of "un-objective" moral reasoning as opposed to the the other forms?
Because when you can refer to an incorporeal entity which cannot be objectively examined for justification, there is no way to argue against your position.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:And yet we've established that there's no objective means outside faith to establish morality, either. So what exactly is the point of calling out this particular form of "un-objective" moral reasoning as opposed to the the other forms?
Because when you can refer to an incorporeal entity which cannot be objectively examined for justification, there is no way to argue against your position.
Sure there is. See above.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:The scientific method would never produce the result "massacre everyone in this city except for the women - you can keep them for yourselves."
I think you underestimate people's imaginations and how they could [mis]use the scientific method.
The scientific method excludes prescriptive results. If they are producing prescriptive results they are no longer using the scientific method.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Precisely.
Any epistemology can, and almost certainly will, be [mis]used to produce horrendous results. Not just faith.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Precisely.
Any epistemology can, and almost certainly will, be [mis]used to produce horrendous results. Not just faith.
You seem to be saying that someone can hammer a nail in with a wrench. What I'm saying is that they've put down wrench and grabbed a hammer. They aren't misusing the wrench because they aren't using a wrench in the first place.
Yes, people can do something different and call it the scientific method, but that doesn't mean they are using/misusing the scientific method.
In any case, it's easy to point out how someone is *not* using the scientific method properly. You cannot make the same claim on how someone is praying, chanting, etc.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You cannot make the same claim on how someone is praying, chanting, etc.
Why not?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:You cannot make the same claim on how someone is praying, chanting, etc.
Why not?
Because of the lack of objectivity. How do I demonstrate that my method of prayer is superior to your method of prayer?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Check out their basic assumptions. Look at the evidence (what there is) critically. See if their conculsions follow.
And you still don't have to agree to allow them to do demonstrable harm.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
When dealing with faith, that's not a show-stopper.
I don't believe that all faith is equally true, or that all conclusions drawn from faith are equally valid, even thought I know I can't demonstrate that in any manner that would generally be called "objective".
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Threads, why do you think they are inherent characteristics of most human beings?
From the article
quote:The very fact that a religious person would be afraid of God withdrawing Its threat to punish them for committing murder, shows that they have a revulsion of murder which is independent of whether God punishes murder or not. If they had no sense that murder was wrong independently of divine retribution, the prospect of God not punishing murder would be no more existentially horrifying than the prospect of God not punishing sneezing.
Whether or not you are fearful of god is not relevant to that point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry, Threads, I wasn't clear. I meant, "why, in your opinion, would that be an inherent characteristic?"
Why do you think that we have that revulsion?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Why do you think that we have that revulsion?
It's pretty universal in the animal kingdom, particularly among the animals most like ourselves. The reluctance to kill other members of your species arbitrarily seems to be an attribute of mammals as much as endothermy is. Presumably there is a survival benefit.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
*puzzled* Where are you getting that belief? That mammals don't kill each other?
Ever watched Meerkat Manor?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: *puzzled* Where are you getting that belief? That mammals don't kill each other?
Ever watched Meerkat Manor?
There are specific situations in which animals AND men kill their own, generally over resources. It's not arbitrary though.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Again, what is your source?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Again, what is your source?
Um, biology class? Animal Planet? Hobby of reading a lot of biology stuff online because it interests me?
Is it your position that mammals *do* have a tendency to murder their own species arbitrarily?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Why do you think that we have that revulsion?
It's pretty universal in the animal kingdom, particularly among the animals most like ourselves. The reluctance to kill other members of your species arbitrarily seems to be an attribute of mammals as much as endothermy is. Presumably there is a survival benefit.
Again, why?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
You can't name a source? You've been touting the scientific method and it means you don't have to take things on faith and how it is rational and then you state something as fact and can't name a source.
Why do you believe what you said? Can you find a source that has put the question through decent testing?
If not, why do you believe it?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Again, why?
Why is there a survival benefit?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Is that your touted rational, scientific process? You'll believe anything that sounds vaguely like it could be true?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:You can't name a source?
I cannot, off the top of my head, name a specific source that applies to that general statement. I was basing it off extensive reading of literature regarding mammal behavior which contained few examples of such behavior.
I also cannot name a source that indicates that mammals tend to not defecate one one another's heads or compulsively eat hair, but I also feel confident in making that assertion based on the absence of such behavior from the reading I have done.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Why not find a source?
I mean, you claim it, you're using it in an argument, an argument as a matter of fact concerns the reliabilty of sources. Claiming to be a mini-expert because of some online poking around and possibly watching Animal Planet isn't a good citing. It certainly isn't useful as evidence - anyone hearing would have to rely on you as the expert, and you haven't provided a reason to accept you as an expert in this area.
Just one source? Somewhere?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Is that your touted rational, scientific process?
It was my opinion stated in an informal conversation based on my personal experience in studying the subject. If I were to actually need to make an important decision based on that information, then I'd more rigorously investigate it to verify that my opinion represents reality as well as I believe that it does.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Whether or not murder is "bad" isn't an important decision?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Why not find a source?
Because you're asking me to do the equivalent of "prove there's no god." You want me to find a source that says animals don't do X where most papers are in the form of animals do Y. It's the absence of data suggesting that mammals are inherently violent to members of their own species upon which I base my opinion. That absence can be found in virtually any literature on animal behavior.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Whether or not murder is "bad" isn't an important decision?
The question was why do we think it's bad, not whether or not it's bad.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:It's the absence of data suggesting that mammals are inherently violent to members of their own species upon which I base my opinion.
The absense of data that has become apparent by recreational reading online and watching Animal Planet?
Those are pretty low standards for a study. Is that your standard for studies that claim to have reached something true by the scientific method as well?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Again, why?
Why is there a survival benefit?
Sure. How does that fit with the "survival of the fittest" idea? How do we explain the survival of species that do kill their own kind (us for example). Does it exist on a gene? Is it learned behavior?
It doesn't really matter. I was just making the point (to Threads, I think) that, "it is an inherent characteristic" is not really a much better answer than, "God made us that way".
Nor are they contradictory answers.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How do we explain the survival of species that do kill their own kind (us for example).
Hang on, he didn't say that most mammals never kill their own kind, just that they generally don't do it arbitrarily -- that there is generally a reluctance to kill members of one's own species among mammals.
That doesn't mean they don't do it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The absense of data that has become apparent by recreational reading online and watching Animal Planet?
Offline too, but yeah. Not sure if you have any hobbies, but if you do then you are bound to have exposed yourself to quite a lot more material on the subject than the average Joe. I feel that my opinion is an informed one, regardless of how you wish to characterize it.
quote:Those are pretty low standards for a study.
I never claimed to be producing a study. I expressed my somewhat educated opinion. If you disagree, that's cool. If you disagree and have counter-evidence, even more cool. If I happen across any literature that addresses intra-species non-violence in a broad manner, I'll be sure to pass it on.
quote:Is that your standard for studies that claim to have reached something true by the scientific method as well?
Nope.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Looks like a lot of wiggling to me.
And no, recreational reading doesn't make an expert - especially when the statement in question is supported by "Never read anything that said otherwise."
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sorry, Threads, I wasn't clear. I meant, "why, in your opinion, would that be an inherent characteristic?"
Why do you think that we have that revulsion?
From an evolutionary perspective there are many possible explanations: - We are inherently social creatures due to the environment in which our ancestors grew up. A single human being is fairly vulnerable to predators so it was necessary for us to band together purely for survival's sake. Part of working together involves not killing others within a tribe. - We fear death for obvious reasons and would like to minimize our risk of death. We crave security. Permitting murder would destroy that security. - Societies, including animal societies, cannot function if murder is openly permitted. Someone brought up Meerkat Manor. Notice that the meerkats only "murder" the meerkats in other meerkat tribes (humans do the same and it is not a routine activity). I have not seen murder within a single tribe documented on that show.
I could give you some more if you want.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Looks like a lot of wiggling to me.
And no, recreational reading doesn't make an expert - especially when the statement in question is supported by "Never read anything that said otherwise."
Which is why he never claimed to be an expert.
His beliefs are pretty logical given what he knows. You haven't provided any evidence to counter his and your attack on his sources consists of nothing more than incredulity. Why don't you post something of substance? He told you why he believes what he does.
EDIT: Matt is basically applying Occam's Razor. He knows that he is fairly well read on the subject and that he has not encountered many examples of "recreational" murder (or whatever you want to call it) among animals. This suggests that such "recreational" murder is not very common (suggesting an aversion to murder).
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Looks like a lot of wiggling to me.
OK
quote:And no, recreational reading doesn't make an expert - especially when the statement in question is supported by "Never read anything that said otherwise."
Fortunately, I didn't claim expertise or you'd have me on that one. If lack of expertise in a subject were a bar to posting an opinion on it, we'd all be screwed. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Threads, all those things may well be the case; do you see, though, how it isn't really getting at the heart of the question?
Again, it doesn't matter. There can be any number of reasons. Or combinations of reasons. There are still bigger questions.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Right. Because he thinks he heard it on Animal Planet, except now it's because he can't remember reading anything that that said otherwise.
The point is even those who claim a rational, scientific basis for everything they believe are usually hard-pressed to come up with a source for any specific question, even those that ARE verifiable through the scientific method.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Matt, I think that I sidetracked the conversation with my "why" question to Threads. Sorry about that.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Threads, all those things may well be the case; do you see, though, how it isn't really getting at the heart of the question?
Not really. I was just trying to point out that humans tend seem to have a natural aversion to murder and that one does not need to get their morals from a holy book. Even if we didn't evolve such an aversion and God just gave it to us, that isn't really relevant to my point. It would still shows that atheists can have morals (just that those morals would, ironically, be given to them by God). It's possible but it's also not a particularly strong theory.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I see. I missed that. Probably because it didn't occur to me to believe that we get our morals from a book. Or that atheists were amoral.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Matt, I think that I sidetracked the conversation with my "why" question to Threads. Sorry about that.
No problem. It's the natural order of things. Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:The point is even those who claim a rational, scientific basis for everything they believe are usually hard-pressed to come up with a source for any specific question, even those that ARE verifiable through the scientific method.
So those who believe in the scientific method should only speak if they can site a source on every statement they are going to make?
You're coming off a little scary in this thread Kat. I don't think your attacks are anywhere close to being justified (or effective). Edit: Though Matt doesn't seem to mind, and is answering far more politely than I would in the same situation.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The point is even those who claim a rational, scientific basis for everything they believe
I'm not sure you could produce a statement by me to that affect.
I believe that rationality is an ideal that we should strive for. I believe that I am more rational in my approach to some subjects than to others and that I should try to correct that. I am willing to grant tentative approval to ideas that appear to be based on rational processes (i.e. a scientific study from a respected journal) with the understanding that the methodology and data that produce those ideas are, in principal, independently testable and reproducible. I also understand that I may have to give up these ideas when they are disproved or when conflicting ones are more convincingly presented in the future.
I do take many thing on faith and I see that as a an evil but unfortunately a necessary one. I cannot possibly become an expert on all subject matter, but I am willing to grant credence to those who have demonstrated expertise and I do my best to educate myself as much as possible.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:You're coming off a little scary in this thread Kat. I don't think your attacks are anywhere close to being justified (or effective). Edit: Though Matt doesn't seem to mind, and is answering far more politely than I would in the same situation.
To be honest, I do mind, but I've chosen not to engage it given how productive that has been in the past. The best I can do is try to be clear and polite and let everything else roll off. It's a zen thing. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Right. Because he thinks he heard it on Animal Planet, except now it's because he can't remember reading anything that that said otherwise.
How do you manage to get by every day? Do you never eat until you've verified with multiple peer-review journals that eating food won't kill you?
I think it's pretty clear that believing in the scientific method doesn't necessitate having to find sources for every piece of knowledge.
As a bonus, here's a University of Maine article which specifically addresses that most species don't kill one another on a regular basis, but instead use non-lethal methods of asserting dominance.
Happy now? Good.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think the entire argument about whether other mammals engage in recreational killing of their own species is really moot.
We know that other some other mammals kill their own species. Many cases have been observed and although we can't be sure about any non-humans motivations we suspect that they kill to defend territory, to obtain mating rites, to eliminte their rivals offspring, and to gain social status. Wars have been observed between packs of wolves and groups of Gorilla's. While Human motives for murder may be more varied and complex, Human desires and social interactions are more varied and complex in almost every respect.
Recreational killing isn't exactly common among humans either. There are ~5.7 murders for every 100,000 people in the US annually. I suspect that most of those murders are commited for motives like property, territory, sex, status which aren't all that different from the motives we assign to killings between bears, lions or elk. Which leaves a very small number indeed which would qualify as "recreational killing". If the murder rate was similar among Grizzly bears (world population 200,000) for example, we would only anticipate 12 Grizzlies killed by other Grizzlies per year. Given that bears live mostly in areas that are not heavily populated by humans, that many bear murders could easily escape observation. Given those statistics, I think it would be very difficult to conclude that other mammals, particularly other predators, are less likely to kill their own with out cause than humans.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: As a bonus, here's a University of Maine article which specifically addresses that most species don't kill one another on a regular basis, but instead use non-lethal methods of asserting dominance.
I've looked through that article and think there is a critical flaw in the work. "Most species" aren't comparable to humans because they do not have a well defined social structure and they aren't predators. The examples he gives are for red deer and are quite consistent for most herbivors.
If on the other hand you look at wolves, who like humans are predators that rely on a social structure for survival, you get a very different story. An alpha male wolf will typically kill 2 to 5 other wolves during the course of his life. Since the reintrodution of wolves into Yellowstone National Park, their have been several "wars" between various packs over territory.
Chimpanzees, the closest relatives to humans, who are omnivores living in social groups like us, fight wars too.
I'm quite confident that if Roscoe had compared human tribal groups to wolves, he would have come to quite different conclusions.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I didn't claim it was an exhaustive source, but it is a source, which is all JH demanded in order to continue the discussion.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Why the wink? Does this not describe what you've been trying to say exactly?
Other way around; it's a necessary precondition for what I've been trying to say.
Which would explain why so many people feel your argument is not compelling.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It seems to me that any epistemology can be [mis]used to produce conclusions that we are not willing to license.
This is a bit of a dodge. The idea that all epistemologies are equally valid because all of them can produce incorrect conclusions, while perhaps appealing, ignores the fact that all epistemologies are not equally likely to produce correct conclusions. I might, for example, flip a coin every time I'm faced with a yes/no decision. Is this as useful as the scientific method?
I cannot think of a single epistemology that is as consistently correct, useful, and self-correcting as the scientific method. Comparing it to faith on that basis does not make faith look better as an epistemology.
----
quote:The point is even those who claim a rational, scientific basis for everything they believe are usually hard-pressed to come up with a source for any specific question, even those that ARE verifiable through the scientific method.
The difference here, of course, is that people who actually have a rational, scientific basis for what they believe can produce reliable sources for any specific question. Whereas people who merely have faith in something, no matter how dedicated they are to that belief, will never be able to produce a source of any kind.
-------
quote:Which would explain why so many people feel your argument is not compelling.
Hey, if some people don't think that belief in an unnecessarily complicated system, without any proof of any kind and without any demonstrable benefit, constitutes irrational behavior, more power to 'em. I think that's pretty much a functional definition of irrationality, but they don't have to agree with me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
But Tom, since he scientific method is inherently non-prescriptive it alone is even less useful for making decisions than flipping a coin.
Science is a method for gaining knowledge about the natural world. That knowledge sometimes helps us better understand the far reaching consequences of a decision and knowledge is an important tool in making decisions. But knowledge alone is insufficient. Even if science can some day provide us with a clear understanding of the outcomes of every decision we might make, Science is incapable of telling us what outcomes would be desirable. In order for science to be of use in decision making, we must have a system of values that science itself can not provide.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But Tom, since he scientific method is inherently non-prescriptive it alone is even less useful for making decisions than flipping a coin.
Depends on the decision. If, for example, I would like to heat some water, science will tell me that I should put it on the stove instead of on a block of ice. In fact, science can (in principle) answer pretty much any precise question; it's just the questions we can't ask coherently that give us problems. Basically, the fault is in our method of asking, not science's ability to answer.
When we say that science cannot tell us which outcomes would be desirable, that's inaccurate. Science cannot define the word "desirable" for us. Once we have defined "desirable," science can tell us whether a given outcome matches that definition or not.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:In order for science to be of use in decision making, we must have a system of values that science itself can not provide.
Yep.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:In order for science to be of use in decision making, we must have a system of values that science itself can not provide.
Then we make a system of values, either personally or as a society.
What's the problem?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure why we're confusing ethics with reality. Is "goodness" empirical?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:In order for science to be of use in decision making, we must have a system of values that science itself can not provide.
Then we make a system of values, either personally or as a society.
What's the problem?
The problem is that that "system of values" whether its personal or societal is outside the realm of science. It can not be determined in a purely rational manner. If we are still talking about Politcal leaders (and I'm not sure we are but that is where we started) then the problem is that I a want leader who not only appreciates the importance of rational scientific knowledge but also a leader who shares my values. And quite frankly, I think the latter is more important than the former. In fact, the last think I want is someone with values I consider to be highly immoral (for example someone who valued "racial purity") using a highly scientific approach to achieve those ends.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm not sure why we're confusing ethics with reality. Is "goodness" empirical?
Your statement implies a fundamental assumption that all things "real" are necessarily empirical. Which begs the fundamental question we are debating.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be fair, I'm not debating it.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Not everything is verified by experimental observation. In matters of religion, there are no controlled variables (that is, from a humble observer's perspective) and there is no garauntee that what is happening will or can happen again. Much of the morality that is religious is based on reasoning (the apostle Paul for example, did not by any record become the puppet of God when he wrote all those letters; he was speaking from what he knew about God and Jesus and what made sense to him. Most of which makes sense to me) and trust that something had happened because God made it so. When you study religion, you can't say "If there is a God, he will use his magic and make the cup in my hand disappear" to verify the existence of God. The hypothesis from the start is flawed.
The assumption that reality must be empirical is pervasive among scientists; that's one reason we hear some really loony conclusions about quantum mechanics and the state of unobserved waves/particles. It's not "real" until it's observed! The uncertainty principle tears apart the notion that all that is real is observable.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: To be fair, I'm not debating it.
That is what is meant by "begging the question".
You are claiming it as an established fact when it is in truth the central point of disagreement.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: The assumption that reality must be empirical is pervasive among scientists; that's one reason we hear some really loony conclusions about quantum mechanics and the state of unobserved waves/particles. It's not "real" until it's observed!
That's not really true. A particle in a state of superposition is still "real" (it still exists).
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: The uncertainty principle tears apart the notion that all that is real is observable.
How?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The difference here, of course, is that people who actually have a rational, scientific basis for what they believe can produce reliable sources for any specific question. Whereas people who merely have faith in something, no matter how dedicated they are to that belief, will never be able to produce a source of any kind.
The Bible. The Koran. God. The Pope. A Dream. All belief systems, including science, are built upon sources that we must trust in order to accept those belief systems. You personally may trust the observations of scientists coupled with various assumptions about the universe far more than you trust ancient books, people, or dreams - but they are still all sources.
Keep in mind that so far, the only justification you have given for accepting the foundational premises of science was that you are "comfortable with relying on the starting assumptions necessary for the scientific method." Other people are comfortable placing their faith in other assumptions, or other sources.
quote:I cannot think of a single epistemology that is as consistently correct, useful, and self-correcting as the scientific method.
Why?
Imagine if some mad sociologist took a bunch of children and isolated them from the rest of society, in two groups. One group is taught only the scientific method, and is taught to use that to solve all questions. The other group is taught to have faith in the Bible, and to use that faith to solve all questions. If both groups actually ended up following the epistimologies they were taught, I'd be willing to bet that the latter society would turn out happier and more successful. The scientific group might be better at figuring out how to make a fire, but the religious society would know not to kill one another.
quote:In fact, science can (in principle) answer pretty much any precise question; it's just the questions we can't ask coherently that give us problems.
I don't believe this is the case. The scope of science is extremely limited, to the point where it can answer only a very few questions - although it can answer those pretty well. But science can definitely NOT tell me what the color of the car parked next to mine at work tomorrow will be, no matter how precisely I ask the question. It can't tell me the name of the person to marry if I want to be happiest. It can't tell me if God exists. It can't tell me how to define "faith". It can't tell me what the experience of tasting apple pie is like for you, in your consciousness. It can't tell me if cheating on a test is wrong. It can't tell me why life is of any value.
Science is a tool in the epistemological toolbox, in my opinion - but I wouldn't want to go through life using only science any more than I'd want to try to build a house using only a hammer.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Imagine if some mad sociologist took a bunch of children and isolated them from the rest of society, in two groups. One group is taught only the scientific method, and is taught to use that to solve all questions. The other group is taught to have faith in the Bible, and to use that faith to solve all questions. If both groups actually ended up following the epistimologies they were taught, I'd be willing to bet that the latter society would turn out happier and more successful. The scientific group might be better at figuring out how to make a fire, but the religious society would know not to kill one another.
*facepalm*
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Note I did say "If both groups actually ended up following the epistimologies they were taught".
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Note I did say "If both groups actually ended up following the epistimologies they were taught".
Yeah, I think he caught that part.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
"You're on a scenic route through the state recreational area known as Tresopax's mind. You ask a passer-by for directions, only to find he has no face or something. Suddenly, up ahead, a door in the road. You swerve, narrowly avoiding The Scary Door"
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Well, as an atheist, I regularly kill people, since I don't have a holy book to tell me not to.
Take that for what you will.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I believe we warned you at the last meeting that your body count was below quota, MC.
Twenty demerits unless you've rectified the situation.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
And I, as an atheist, just enjoyed a baby for breakfast. I think I may have another for dinner tonight.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Keep in mind that so far, the only justification you have given for accepting the foundational premises of science was that you are "comfortable with relying on the starting assumptions necessary for the scientific method." Other people are comfortable placing their faith in other assumptions, or other sources.
Yes. I'm certainly not disputing that other people are willing to rely on poor starting assumptions.
quote:I'd be willing to bet that the latter society would turn out happier and more successful.
I'd be willing to take that bet, especially if you're serious about their use of faith to answer all questions.
quote:But science can definitely NOT tell me what the color of the car parked next to mine at work tomorrow will be, no matter how precisely I ask the question.
Science can tell you this better than any other epistemology. It can examine the lot, figure out what percentage of cars owned by your coworkers are which color, record where they like to park, etc. Do you think this is a question which faith can answer as satisfactorily?
quote:It can't tell me the name of the person to marry if I want to be happiest. It can't tell me if God exists. It can't tell me how to define "faith". It can't tell me what the experience of tasting apple pie is like for you, in your consciousness. It can't tell me if cheating on a test is wrong. It can't tell me why life is of any value.
Do you maintain that these questions have answers? I certainly submit that science can provide partial answers to all of them more reliably and more correctly than any other epistemology of which I'm aware.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Well, as an atheist, I regularly kill people, since I don't have a holy book to tell me not to.
I didn't say anything about atheists. Fortunately for the world, there aren't many people around who actually put what Tom is suggesting into practice - few people, if any, actually turn to science to answer questions about morality or other issues science is unable to study. Atheists turn to scientifically unjustified assumptions (such as "killing is wrong") just like most other people do, and often get these assumptions from society at large, their own observations, or even simply from what they were taught as children. Humanism is just that - it is definitely not from a scientific experiment that most atheists have concluded that human life is fundamentally valuable.
quote:Do you maintain that these questions have answers? I certainly submit that science can provide partial answers to all of them more reliably and more correctly than any other epistemology of which I'm aware.
Yes, they have answers.
And "partial answers" are not actual answers; they do us no good when we need an actual answer. For instance, if I ask my friend "Should we go see a movie tonight" and they reply "The average person sees 1 movie every 26 days", it may have "partially" answered my question, but it doesn't do me any good; he left out the important part of the answer.
Do you actually use science to back up every question you need to ask yourself in life? Do you really think your life would be best if you did that?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:The scientific group might be better at figuring out how to make a fire, but the religious society would know not to kill one another.
Somehow I don't think they'd miss all of the "mass genocide is a good thing, if the victims are of another tribe" parts. Oh and the parts which tell you to execute people for various sins.
A society which based its decision making entirely on the bible would scare the crap out of me.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:The scientific group might be better at figuring out how to make a fire, but the religious society would know not to kill one another.
Somehow I don't think they'd miss all of the "mass genocide is a good thing, if the victims are of another tribe" parts. Oh and the parts which tell you to execute people for various sins.
A society which based its decision making entirely on the bible would scare the crap out of me.
And Tres also assumes that these faith believers won't break off into competing groups and start fighting, which seems to be a trend.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Which parts of the Bible? Or did you mean the Old Testament?
--
Yes, Tres does assume that, which he stated at the beginning.
Fascinatingly, do you believe that without religion, there would be no war? Really?
I think that's one of the main problems here - you're looking at humanity and seeing both war and religiona and deciding that one caused by the either, and I look at humanity, see both war and relgion, actually look at what most of the religions are saying, and conclude that people want different things simultaneously.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Which parts of the Bible? Or did you mean the Old Testament?
While the New Testament doesn't directly support mass genocide, it does have it's own share of bad ideas and philosophies, as well as saying that it supports the laws of the OT.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I find the insistence on ignoring everyting but the most questionable parts of religion and then taking that to be representative of the whole to be puzzling.
And marvelously unscientific.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I find the insistence on ignoring everyting but the most questionable parts of religion and then taking that to be representative of the whole to be puzzling.
And marvelously unscientific.
And I find the insistence on ignoring everything but the best parts of religion and then taking that to be representative of the whole to be equally as puzzling.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Fascinatingly, do you believe that without religion, there would be no war? Really?
Who said that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Yes, they have answers.
They do? You have an epistemology that can reliably and provably tell you the name of the person you would be happiest with on Earth? Or what apple pie tastes like for me? Pray tell.
quote:And "partial answers" are not actual answers; they do us no good when we need an actual answer. For instance, if I ask my friend "Should we go see a movie tonight" and they reply "The average person sees 1 movie every 26 days", it may have "partially" answered my question, but it doesn't do me any good; he left out the important part of the answer.
Science can do more than that. Science can say "Do you want to see a movie? Are there any movies out that we'd want to see? Can we afford a movie? Do we have something else of higher priority or greater personal value to do?"
You're laboring under a remarkably narrow definition of "science" here that ignores the fact that it includes all of observational reality. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Fascinatingly, do you believe that without religion, there would be no war? Really?
No. But there would be no war caused by the reasons religions cause wars. That wouldn't be a bad thing.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It seems like one empirical good being advanced is not to kill. But isn't competition and extinction part of evolution? I'm not saying it has to go that way, there are certainly mechanisms where death comes from without.
I've just seen dogs eat their own puppies. Sure they were domesticated dogs, but if eating the runts gives you more calories to pass on the the healthy puppies.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:
quote:Yes, they have answers.
They do? You have an epistemology that can reliably and provably tell you the name of the person you would be happiest with on Earth? Or what apple pie tastes like for me? Pray tell.
Seems to me you've jumped WAY beyond the word "answers" there.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So if there are wars relating to sexual competition, perhaps we should do away with sex. Wasn't that the deal with the Trojan war?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: So if there are wars relating to sexual competition, perhaps we should do away with sex. Wasn't that the deal with the Trojan war?
Have fun enforcing that pooka. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It seems like one empirical good being advanced is not to kill. But isn't competition and extinction part of evolution?
I don't think anyone here has suggested "do not kill" as an empirical value, unless you think everyone on the thread is opposed to the death penalty, war, etc.
I've said this before, and I think the earliest axiom we can come up with for this is: "harm is bad." There may be situations in which all the options available to you cause harm; Darwinian evolution is a result of one such situation, where a failure to harm someone may harm both you and your whole "society."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Seems to me you've jumped WAY beyond the word "answers" there.
Those were the questions presented. "What does apple pie taste like to someone else" and "what's the name of the person who would make me happiest" were specific questions earlier in the thread. I am suggesting that these questions are essentially unanswerable by any methodology, but that science is better than any other epistemology at providing reliable partial answers to even those questions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I wasn't referring to the questions, but rather to the assumption you seem to have that an answer only exists if we have the means to discover it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: But science can definitely NOT tell me what the color of the car parked next to mine at work tomorrow will be, no matter how precisely I ask the question. It can't tell me the name of the person to marry if I want to be happiest. It can't tell me if God exists. It can't tell me how to define "faith". It can't tell me what the experience of tasting apple pie is like for you, in your consciousness. It can't tell me if cheating on a test is wrong. It can't tell me why life is of any value.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do you maintain that these questions have answers?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Yes, they have answers.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Seems to me you've jumped WAY beyond the word "answers" there.
Which "you" are you referring to?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Which "you" are you referring to?
The one who authored the quote to which I was responding - Tom.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Thanks, I think I interpreted your question the same way TomD did, except with the added confusion of whether you were also challenging TomD for asking for answers or challenging Tresopax for accepting and saying that there were answers (or both).
Oy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I wasn't referring to the questions, but rather to the assumption you seem to have that an answer only exists if we have the means to discover it.
Exactly. Or that those are the only important questions.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: So if there are wars relating to sexual competition, perhaps we should do away with sex. Wasn't that the deal with the Trojan war?
Have fun enforcing that pooka.
Sounds like The Giver.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: So if there are wars relating to sexual competition, perhaps we should do away with sex. Wasn't that the deal with the Trojan war?
A) Probably a myth, or at least very different from the story B) If anything I would blame the scheming gods, rather than Paris's libido C) If true...hey, at least we have Western religion pushing chastity as a virtue and trying to do away with as much sex as possible Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
You'll have about as much success in outlawing religion as you would in outlawing sex.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Pushing chastity as a virtue is not the same thing as trying to do away with as as much sex as possible.
If you had said it's trying to do away with unchaste sex, you'd be closer to the mark.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: You'll have about as much success in outlawing religion as you would in outlawing sex.
Who said anything about outlawing religion?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In this discussion, or ever?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: In this discussion, or ever?
In this discussion. I'm well aware that there are people who have wanted to outlaw religion.
I happen to not be one of them, and I don't think I see anyone in this thread expressing that desire.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Nor do I, but I haven't read everything.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Nor do I, but I haven't read everything.
Right. My reason for posting the question is that I suspect kat's comment was directed at me. Could be wrong, of course.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Pushing chastity as a virtue is not the same thing as trying to do away with as as much sex as possible.
If you had said it's trying to do away with unchaste sex, you'd be closer to the mark.
Perhaps, we're working from different definitions of chastity. I'm working from chastity as in the opposite of lust, with the best case being celibacy (both in mind and in body).
From that perspective, then it has always put virginity and celibacy in a special place, from the virgin Mary (both before and after the birth of Christ) on down to the celibate priests and nuns. Sure, concessions are made for married couples if only to perpetuate the human race, but even then birth control is advised against, pretty much eliminating sex without a high chance of unintended consequences. Heck, in the best case, if all women were suddenly overcome with religious fervour, decided to make themselves servants of God and became nuns then the whole issue would be moot.
Call it whatever you wish, but we'd certainly be getting a heck of a lot less, not that I necessarily disagree in all cases...
In fact, short of STDs (and maybe, maybe perhaps economics), I can't think of many other arguments against sex that are quite as effective as those rooted in religion.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Chaste = no premarital sex and fidelity to your spouse once married
Do not mistake one tenet of one religion to be representative for all religions.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Heck, in the best case, if all women were suddenly overcome with religious fervour, decided to make themselves servants of God and became nuns then the whole issue would be moot.
Only if they were catholic.
You're making sweeping comments about "Western religion" that really only apply to a fraction of them.
By your definition of chastity (avoiding sex as much as possible), I'd say that most Western religions do not promote it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Those were the questions presented. "What does apple pie taste like to someone else" and "what's the name of the person who would make me happiest" were specific questions earlier in the thread. I am suggesting that these questions are essentially unanswerable by any methodology, but that science is better than any other epistemology at providing reliable partial answers to even those questions.
Taste of apple pie: I think the most popular method of answering this question is eating apple pie one time and then assuming that apple pie tastes to everyone else just as it tastes to you. You can argue about how accurate this is, but there's no proof either way, and it most certainly gives you a complete answer to the question.
Person who makes you happiest: I think most people use dating to do this. This relies on a ton of unscientific assumptions in order to make judgements about people, but it ultimately gives one a complete answer. Once again, one can argue over how accurate that answer is, but you couldn't prove it one way or another. There's also plenty of other methods you could choose, ranging from accepting whoever your parents tell you will make you happiest to picking a name at random out of the phonebook. Whether these methods should be considered accurate or inaccurate, rational or irrational, depends again on what starting assumptions you accept. But they definitely give complete answers.
I have no method to answer either of these questions with certainty or proof, but just because I can't prove the answers does not mean correct answers don't exist out there.
quote:You're laboring under a remarkably narrow definition of "science" here that ignores the fact that it includes all of observational reality
If that were true then my religion would be supported by science, since it is based in things I have observed about reality. Even a kid's belief in Santa Claus would be scientifically supported, since it is based on observations that his or her parents told them Santa exists, that they've seen Santa at the mall, that they've seen and touched presents on Christmas that said "From Santa" on them. But I don't think this is what people normally mean when they say "scientific method". It is far far more narrow than just anything based on any observation about reallity. Or so I was taught in science class.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Only if they were catholic.
You're making sweeping comments about "Western religion" that really only apply to a fraction of them.
By your definition of chastity (avoiding sex as much as possible), I'd say that most Western religions do not promote it.
*shrug* Why else do you think I prefaced that particular statement with "In the best case"*
But as for the rest, I accept your criticism. My previous statements only apply to those Western religions that believe in the virgin Mary and have any history (or branch from a religion that does) of their priests (or nuns if they have them) being celibate.
* Catholicism being the one that I respect and am impressed by the most for different reasons than the current discussion
JH: As was made clear by the post I was responding to, I was using my definition, which as it turns out isn't too far from the real one
quote: chaste /tʃeɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[cheyst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective, chast·er, chast·est. 1. refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to morality or religion; virtuous.
In the appropriate religions: For a married person, that would mean only having sex with your partner for procreation For a priest, that would mean being celibate In the best case, that would mean being a virgin
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
You know, whenever I see threads get longer than 6 pages or so I like to read just the thread title and the last page, to see how far it's drifted. This one's been great for that game.
--Enigmatic
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Mucus (and others),
For a more current version of the official vatican position on sex, you should read this:
quote:In the appropriate religions: For a married person, that would mean only having sex with your partner for procreation For a priest, that would mean being celibate In the best case, that would mean being a virgin
I think most Christiain religions push marriage as the preferred "best case" for the average person.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:As was made clear by the post I was responding to, I was using my definition, which as it turns out isn't too far from the real one
Actually, the difference between your definition and the "real" one is exactly what I was correcting you about.
[EDITED OUT]
quote:In the best case, that would mean being a virgin
That is incorrect. There's nothing in that definition that supports this.
The definition you quoted is "refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to morality or religion". Note that it does not say "refraining from all sex".
If sex between a married couple is neither contrary to morality or religion, then it is perfectly chaste.
edit: Big mistake
[ November 30, 2007, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Edited... no longer necessary.
[ November 30, 2007, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: maui babe ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Wow. I totally missed that. I thought it said "only having sex with your partner."
No, what Mucus said about married partners is not correct at all. Unless non-procreative sex is considered immoral or contrary to religion (which is is not by most "Western religions"), non-procreative sex between a married couple is perfectly chaste, using the definition chastity that Mucas quoted.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Thanks mph... people think we're weird enough without adding to what we really believe. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Thank you for catching that. I saw what I had done and was quite horrified.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Thank you for catching that. I saw what I had done and was quite horrified.
Too late Porter, you just ruined the faith, I can't believe your careless key strokes have just created an insurmountable wall that future missionary efforts will never traverse.
It all started with Joseph Smith in the woods and it all ends with Porter at his keyboard. I hope your back gets thrown out again. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I believe in J. Golden Kimball. If the missionaries throughout the years haven't been able to destroy the LDS Church, it can easily weather Porter at his keyboard.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I believe in J. Golden Kimball. If the missionaries throughout the years haven't been able to destroy the LDS Church, it can easily weather Porter at his keyboard.
Ha! I love that quote. Michael Moore said, "damn" during a speech he made at UVSC and then said in effect, "Oh I'm sorry can I say that here? I got my speech coaching from J. Golden Kimball." I swear I was the only one in a room of thousands of Mormons who started laughing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You went to that speech?
We can never be friends.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Not to stop the funny, but I'm hoping that raising the bar for missionaries means that quote isn't as true as it used to be.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You went to that speech?
We can never be friends.
Just gathering intel from one of the enemy's rallies.
Javert Hugo: Have you served a mission? Just curious. I am still certain that no matter how hard 19-21 year old young men try to be good missionaries, they still pose the greatest risk of turning people away from the church. But they are also however vitally important in spreading the gospel throughout the world.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Yep. I served in Detroit, Michigan and loved every bit of it.
I think the quote is a bit unfair - most missionaries were absolutely wonderful. Some weren't, though, and I'm hoping that the raising of the bar means those that aren't ready don't go and so Prez can spend his time teaching and training rather than baby-sitting.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Yep. I served in Detroit, Michigan and loved every bit of it.
I think the quote is a bit unfair - most missionaries were absolutely wonderful. Some weren't, though, and I'm hoping that the raising of the bar means those that aren't ready don't go and so Prez can spend his time teaching and training rather than baby-sitting.
Well that is only part of the humor, the other part is that missionaries are still 19-21 year old dudes who are going to mess things up in the efforts to emulate Jesus.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
That's just it - I don't think they do screw things up that badly. Most of the missionaries that I knew that were really trying succeeded more or less - at least, they were better than they would have been had they not been trying.
I get why it's supposed to be funny, but the funny rests on an inaccurate premise.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Re: "being a virgin is the best case"
I would have thought this would be less controversial. I have a pretty good feeling that the cult around the Virgin Mary would be rather less impressive if she was the "Almost-Virgin except for this one time in Cancun Mary". Historically, a decent number of virgin cults formed with her as a model, and women joining them professing total chastity, even attaining sainthood when successful.
Re: "Married couples"
As I understand it, marriage is more of a limited admission than a buffet-style admission to lust. Even ignoring the stereotype of "only in the dark and in the missionary position", I would have thought that Christians would typically be more conservative in the bedroom. Heck, if we limit the discussion to Catholics, without birth control, very many sexual acts essentially become for procreative purposes
To be honest, I'm not sure why the controversy. Does the Bush administration (and its hard core supporters) not promote religiously-based abstinence only programs to cut down on sex? To echo my previous question, can anyone think of a more effective argument to cut down the number of sexual incidents aside from religion when discounting things like arguments from STDs or maybe, maybe economics?
And why is everyone suddenly trying to convince me that religious folk have *more frequent* sex lives than the norm?
In any case, since I've been contacted by a fellow poster, I think I'll pursue that venue, and in a more personal tone than out here, so I will cut down on contributing to this particular topic for now.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It all started with Joseph Smith in the woods and it all ends with Porter at his keyboard. I hope your back gets thrown out again.
If it helps any, I never thought of Mormons in my discussion. Indeed, I would be very surprised by anyone picking a religion due to what sexual practises you're allowed.
(unless, you're a king of England or something)
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It all started with Joseph Smith in the woods and it all ends with Porter at his keyboard. I hope your back gets thrown out again.
If it helps any, I never thought of Mormons in my discussion. Indeed, I would be very surprised by anyone picking a religion due to what sexual practises you're allowed.
(unless, you're a king of England or something)
Picking a religion for its sexual practices might be rare, but creating your own, at least in the King's case, wasn't out of the question.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Why didn't you think of Mormons? You attributed certain practices to "religion." Why didn't you include a religion that gets pretty steady exposure here? ----
No, in at least of the major religions brought up in this thread, being a virgin is not the "best" case - being chaste is, with the definition previously discussed.
---
I'm guessing groups that promoted celibacy for women were a lot more attractive when the alternative meant a huge likelihood of dying young. Sex before modern medicine and birth control was DANGEROUS for women. Forget the syphilis and the clap - getting pregnant meant taking your life in your hands.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And why is everyone suddenly trying to convince me that religious folk have *more frequent* sex lives than the norm?
I don't see anybody doing that.
quote: I have a pretty good feeling that the cult around the Virgin Mary would be rather less impressive if she was the "Almost-Virgin except for this one time in Cancun Mary".
The "cult around the Virgin Mary" is not widespread throughout "Western religion" (your words).
If you're talking about one particular branch, like Catholicism, that's OK. But what you're saying simply doesn't apply to most branches.
quote:Does the Bush administration (and its hard core supporters) not promote religiously-based abstinence only programs to cut down on sex?
They're trying to cut down on unmarried sex.
If you can point me toward such abstinence programs that are trying to keep people from ever getting married so that they'll remain virgins their whole lives, I'll be very surprised.
quote:To be honest, I'm not sure why the controversy.
It's because you're saying things that simply aren't true. You're assuming that it's generally believed in Western religions that there's something wrong with sex between married couples and that it's better to stay a virgin than to get married. This simply isn't true.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm hoping that raising the bar for missionaries means that quote isn't as true as it used to be.
I think that it does, but I think that it will alway be true enough to be funny.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If it helps any, I never thought of Mormons in my discussion.
You were making claims about "Western religion". Unless you're saying that Mormons are an exception to the norm with regards to this (we're not) or that we're not a Western religion (we are), what you're saying is inaccurate.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
mph: I never used the term "Western religion" after this post.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: But as for the rest, I accept your criticism. My previous statements only apply to those Western religions that believe in the virgin Mary and have any history (or branch from a religion that does) of their priests (or nuns if they have them) being celibate.
You've used it three times after this statement when it was clear that I had only intended to mean the group above.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Why didn't you think of Mormons? You attributed certain practices to "religion." Why didn't you include a religion that gets pretty steady exposure here?
Actually, I first ascribed them to "Western religion." After I accepted mph's criticism (I'm not sure if he missed it), they only applied to that group in my post above.
I didn't think of Mormons because they aren't representative of Christianity. I would think that the whole controversy as to whether Mormons are even *Christian* would make that obvious. I was also thinking of the fact that the number of Mormons are tiny compared to the number of Catholics, if I'm going to pick an example I'm going to use the biggest group, not one of the smallest.
This isn't to say that Mormons are bad or anything, its just that they're much less relevant.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Mucus: Ah. I didn't understand that everything you were saying from that point on only applied to religions with celibate priests or nuns. I'm sorry for hounding you.
BTW, not everybody who believes in the virgin birth believes that the virgin Mary remained a virgin after she got married.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
This isn't to say that Mormons are bad or anything, its just that they're much less relevant.
In the global context, perhaps, but you're involved in a Hatrack discussion here. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My understanding is that, although being a virgin was very cool and all (especially later on), the early emphasis on the virgin birth was to establish the Divine nature of Jesus. In other words, it was more about Him than about her.
And tradition, I believe, indicates that she had other children later.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Isn't James supposed to be the brother of Jesus? One of the Jameses, anyway?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And tradition, I believe, indicates that she had other children later.
Depending on the tradition.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Which traditions say that she remained a virgin all her life, Javert?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Mormons tend to lean toward Jesus having at least 3 "half" brothers--James, Joses, and Jude. Also that the book of James in the New Testament was written by James, the brother of Jesus.
Edit: Sorry, 4 half brothers--Simon, too. Matthew 13:55 Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Which traditions say that she remained a virgin all her life, Javert?
I'm pretty sure Catholic. At least that's what I remember from Sunday School. My memory could be faulty, of course. And the teaching could have changed between now and then.
I've also seen quite a few Christians become somewhat agitated when it was suggested that Mary ever had sex. Which suggests to me that either those individual Christians' traditions taught that Mary was always a virgin, or those individuals thought it did.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I've also seen quite a few Christians become somewhat agitated when it was suggested that Mary ever had sex.
As have I, but only Catholics.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
kmboots is Catholic. Her statements in this thread seem to contradict your generalizations about her religion.
Can you say what traditions those Christians belonged to that were agitated at the notion of Mary having sex? ----
The larger point is that the ignorance about religion in this thread is a little staggering. Why do you reject something you clearly know so little about?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: kmboots is Catholic. Her statements in this thread seem to contradict your generalizations about her religion.
Can you say what traditions those Christians belonged to that were agitated at the notion of Mary having sex? ----
The larger point is that the ignorance about religion in this thread is a little staggering. Why do you reject something you clearly know so little about?
Number 1, I was a Catholic for over 20 years. So I'd like to think I know a little bit about it.
Number 2, nearly everyone has a different understanding of their religion. If I talk to you, kat, about Mormonism, and then go and talk to BlackBlade, and then talk to OSC, are all three of you going to have the exact same answers and understandings? Somehow I doubt it.
Number 3, I lack a belief in every religion someone has presented to me as truth. Note I said I have a lack of belief, not that I 'reject' them. If you have some new religion I've never come across, present it to me and I'll tell you whether I believe it or not.
That being said, one does not have to study at every fashion school in the world in order to see that the Emperor has no clothes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Javert, True. There is the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary which came along a bit later. Which was controverisal at the time and remains so.
James is noted in scripture as being the brother of Jesus. Joseph is sometimes described as being childless. Some believe that Mary remarried after Joseph died. Of course even the term "brother" is open to interpretation...
Perpetual virginity isn't what I was taught - but there is a lot of variation in Catholic teaching!
There are arguments either way.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I'm sorry for hounding you.
BTW, not everybody who believes in the virgin birth believes that the virgin Mary remained a virgin after she got married.
np, I figured it was a misunderstanding
As for the second, I actually checked that one (Mary on wiki)
quote:Those who believe that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, including Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholics (and thus an absolute majority of Christians), put forward the following considerations on the question... Muslims also believe that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life.
So not everyone, but a majority, at least according to the source I had available.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My understanding is that, although being a virgin was very cool and all (especially later on), the early emphasis on the virgin birth was to establish the Divine nature of Jesus. In other words, it was more about Him than about her.
Sure, but we cannot all be Jesus, we don't have the necessary lineage However, we can follow in Mary's footsteps and a great many did and were sanctified for it.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: The larger point is that the ignorance about religion in this thread is a little staggering. Why do you reject something you clearly know so little about?
*shrug* We all do. How many of us know the finer points distinguishing the various stages of Egyptian pharaoh-based religion? Or Norse?
You have to realise that my interest in this area is purely academic, it is like studying the sexual practises of characters from the LOTR or something.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I wasn't referring to the questions, but rather to the assumption you seem to have that an answer only exists if we have the means to discover it.
Since we're talking about epistemology, I think we can limit the set of "answers" to "discoverable answers" for the purposes of the conversation. If it can't be discovered by any epistemology, it's not useful for judging epistemologies.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Javert, True. There is the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary which came along a bit later. Which was controverisal at the time and remains so.
James is noted in scripture as being the brother of Jesus. Joseph is sometimes described as being childless. Some believe that Mary remarried after Joseph died. Of course even the term "brother" is open to interpretation...
Perpetual virginity isn't what I was taught - but there is a lot of variation in Catholic teaching!
There are arguments either way.
There is a lot of variation, isn't there? And a lot of individual Catholic beliefs differ from the Vatican position.
You'd be surprised at how many Catholics I know who didn't learn until quite late that the Immaculate Conception isn't the same thing as the virgin birth.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I have to say that I have an impression similar to Mucus'. I've always thought that having sex solely for pleasure was frowned upon. My parents, who are both Catholic, agree.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You will all be relieved that I am not (again!) going to give my dissertation on sex and the Catholic Church. I will say, though, that "sex that is not for procreation" and "sex that is solely for pleasure" are not necessarily the same thing.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I will say, though, that "sex that is not for procreation" and "sex that is solely for pleasure" are not necessarily the same thing.
Now you've got me curious. Sex for money?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I actually own a book called "Sexuality and the Catholic Church". And kmbboots is right. It's not so much that they're against enjoying sex. But every sexual act must include the possibility of procreation.
According to that book, anyway.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I will say, though, that "sex that is not for procreation" and "sex that is solely for pleasure" are not necessarily the same thing.
Now you've got me curious. Sex for money?
Sex for strengthening the emotional and spiritual bonds in a relationship.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
For sure, dkw.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Fr. Ron Rolheiser, in beautiful essay that I wish I could find online, defines sexuality as, “a beautiful, good, sacred energy given us by God and experienced in every cell of our being as an irrepressible urge to overcome our incompleteness, to move toward unity and consummation with what is beyond us.”
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: And kmbboots is right. It's not so much that they're against enjoying sex. But every sexual act must include the possibility of procreation.
While I puzzle over kmbboots's statement (the one Threads responded to, I think I agree, I'm not sure), I will agree that this is a more accurate depiction than my previous one liner. However, note that there are a fair number of acts that consenting married adults can participate in (three, maybe four? two popular ones anyways, which most would consider to be forms of sex) which do not fulfill that latter qualification. I trust that I do not have to give specific examples.
Also, without proper birth control, a couple will on average definitely be having less sex than the norm for one reason (or the other more unintended one).
In addition I will add that not everything that is not a best case is not a sin either. While being a virgin might be a best case, that does not mean that everything else is "bad" either, just not quite as ideal
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You keep saying that virginity is the ideal for certain classes of people. So far, what those people have said seems to contradict that.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The apostle Paul thought marriage was probably a bad idea for a lot of people. Since you can't have non-sinning sex outside marriage, then it follows that according to some interpretations of Christian doctrine, many people should remain virgins their entire lives.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
mph: Well, actually they're not. They are contradicting what they "think" I'm saying. Most of the statements that are reactionary seem to be saying, well, no the Catholic Church says that sex can be good. This is a good thing, all power to them. However, this is somewhat only related to the point since sexual behaviour is not rated on a binary pass-fail heaven-hell scheme, if only due to the existence of Purgatory. Instead, it seems that the Church has established a sexual hierarchy from Virgin Mary down to regular virgins to chaste priests/nuns to married couples, to say birth controlled married couples, to unmarried couples to well...burn. What people are saying is that, wait, sex in marriage is good. Well ok, but it doesn't go to the larger point, they have not established proof that the church has said that the married couple having sex is equivalent or equal to the virgin or the chaste clergy.
If I may draw a parallel, restricted sexual behaviour is not the only restriction on the clergy. Being free of worldy possessions is another stemming from the ascetism of the early Christians. However, in the interests of reality not all Christians can be forced to become poor and penniless giving away all their possessions. So now we have a hierarchy from ascetic monks/nuns to generous people giving to the church to not so generous to greedy. There is a spectrum of behaviour. The Church may promote a relatively generous non-materialistic lifestyle for the average folk but there is still a step "better."
If it is any consolation, the appreciation of virginity if we want to call it that, does not start with the Catholic Church. In Rome itself there were the Vestal virgins themselves and even in our language, virginity is a synonym for purity, and innocence. *If* there is any "innovation" it comes from combining the myths of Jupiter seducing women on Earth to produce half-divine men with the idea of a virtuous virgin as the mother (or even at an extreme the perpetual virgin as the case may be).
I hope that admittedly lengthy post clears up some of the confusion from my previous shorter one-liners.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Mucus, I think that the "spectrum" is not quite so veritical as all that. People are called to different lives, there are different gifts, all parts of the Body of Christ. A hand is not less because it is not a foot. While there is certainly respect for a life devoted to God, a good mother (for example) is not "lower" than a nun.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hey, they don't call her Mother Superior for nothing Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
heh. (Did I send you too much stuff?)
Also pretty amusing, the ads for Virgin Mary statues at the bottom of the page. You can get one made of coal! An inspirational stocking stuffer for a bad girl this Christmas?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
No, not too much stuff. Just regular real life activites, I'll try to get through it when I have the time to give a proper reading.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It isn't just Christopher Hitchens! The entire site is pitched against Romney. Should I be this surprised? Slate doesn't have an anti-horse in the Democratic race. Did Romney fire somebody's mother?
Posted by Anthem (Member # 2453) on :
The second article-- the 'Aren't You Glad We Still Have Him to Kick Around?' is fairly proud of its biases.
I know. I don't get it - have they lost their minds? It's completely biased, and at least half the sneering comes at his religion. Who are the doofuses that think that's behavior becoming a "journalist"?
Posted by Anthem (Member # 2453) on :
Well...I don't think Slate's really a news site. It's all opinion, so anything goes.
I roll my eyes at them, but honestly, let's not mistake them for being subject to actual, rigorous, intellectual standards.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Ditto. Slate does commentary and analysis; qualitatively different from, say, the Wall Street Journal. Furthermore, they're aspiring to the slightly snarky, casual attitude that the Internet (say, Gawker, TMZ, etc) has made profitable.
They're not all that fond of Hillary Clinton either.
Posted by Anthem (Member # 2453) on :
Ooooh! I'm Anthem, now!
I get to talk like this:
"Pssh. Slate ain't never no news site. Just yammering, is all they got. So it's all tutto, see?
I don't take them serious-- straight, it ain't like as they GOT to tell it true."
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Agreed, they aren't fond of her. I don't see the same consistent, off-hand dismissal, though.
And heaven forgive me, the video mashup of Hillary and Tracy Flick was hysterical.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I don't know; they seem to be gearing up toward being anti-Clinton in the same way that they're anti-Romney. I don't have time to get the links, but in the last week or so they've had a string of pieces that evaluate her pretty negatively, and I don't see that stopping.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)