…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
And yours is incoherent.
And that applies equally to theists. I’d argue that in general, secular moral philosophy is sounder than theistic moral philosophy, although the best of both are quite similar, in my view. What I think is REALLY dangerous are theistic moral philosophies based on some kind of Divine Command Theory, which, of course, excludes secular moral philosophy, and fortunately also most theistic moral philosophy. Most theists I know well start from the basis that we go from what we know to be good to an understanding of what a good God desires, rather from an understand of God to an understanding of what goodness must be. The golden rule, for instance, does not presuppose a god, although in some religions, a god gave humans that rule. Not surprisingly, as it is a very good one! If we all looked out for each other, we’d all be better off!
Which is why I am absolutely in favour of welcoming refugees from Syria.
I don’t think so. Rather, I think there is often a conflict between doing what is compassionate in the short term and doing what is compassionate in the long-term (buying your child candy, for instance).
I profoundly disagree that theism or a spiritual infrastructure is necessary to develop a functional moral philosophy. Indeed, I don’t see how it could help, and see very much how it could (and does) hinder, as in the case of Divine Command Theory. Which effectively amounts to “because we feel like god feels like it, we say so”.
I’m very glad we agree on that. 🙂
Trying to figure out what is right without a sound ethical framework is, I agree, potentially disastrous, but not as disastrous as basing your ethical framework on Divine Command theory.
That than raises the question of WHAT to base an ethical framework on. I don’t see how believing, or not believing, in some sort of God makes any difference whatsoever if we preclude (as we agree we should) some kind of revealed Divine Command as to what that basis should be.
Why not simply base it on something as simple as Hippocrates: “First, Do No Harm”? Why is it any more arbitrary to base a moral philosophy on a premise as intuitive (almost tautologically so) as harm avoidance (harm is bad stuff that happens, right? and morality is not doing bad stuff, right?) than on the premise that some god of some sort exists? I would argue that it is LESS arbitrary.
I accept that. But as I see it, the HUGE divide is not between theist moral philosophy and secular moral philosophy, but on Divine Command moral philosophy (which much of Christian and Muslim moral philosophy seems to be, I’m not sure about Judaism but Judaism does seem to have quite a lot of Commandments) and moral philosophy based on the principle of, as I suspect both yours and mine is, of First Do No Harm.
Yeah, maybe if I’d aimed my remark at you or mung you’d have a point. You just took it as a persoal attack for some reason. I’ve indicated explicitly what I think such atrocities DO show–that very devout theists may be extremely evil, that’s there’s no correlation between God devotion and goodness, iin fact, that such devotion may actually result in evil acts. That’s all.
That both you and mung attacked me for saying this is what ought to be explained IMO. Was I wrong to suggest those things?
These words were not in my post:
Mung, phoodoo, Christian, Christianity
Who do you here suggest believes that their god is not ‘fundamentally good’? Whose god is yours better than, do you think?
From what I understand about that school shooter, he didn’t single out Christians – he asked them whether they were Christian, and if they were, said something like “see you soon, then”.
Whether he shot them, didn’t depend on their answer, according to the witnesses I read.
Not that Christians aren’t sometimes the target of crazy attacks. But so are blacks, muslims, women, US citizens and anyone on the same plane/building; Russian citizens and anyone on the same plane/building etc.
It’s hard to point to a substantial ideology that hasn’t produced violent fanatics at some stage or other. Though atheism would have to be a candidate! (No, I’m not ignoring Stalinism or Maoism, but those were first and foremost political ideologies not positions about the existence of God). Quakers too.
It would be good to be able to say buddhists, but unfortunately not.
I guess it’s a good thing that you take there to be no connection between what you believe or assert and what has evidence or is true, because boy is this post a mess. As you insist you don’t care about any of the truth, logic, warrant, etc. stuff, I won’t take the trouble pointing out any of the specifics, just mention that there’s bunch of them.
I agree.
The question would be to ask if the fanatic was following the tenets of the ideology or deviating from them and merely claiming the label.
IMO A “fanatic” Christian would look something like the Amish. What would a fanatic atheist look like in your opinion?
Another interesting question would be how many fanatics does it take before a movement becomes the main stream of an ideology instead of a fringe?
peace
Just to add to this: though Communism is atheist, it is not secularist. Communism is a totalitarian ideology, and is incompatible with cultural/moral pluralism that, in turn, is a precondition for a secular state and a pluralistic culture and civil society.
ISIS is best seen, I think, as having hijacked Islam in support of an anti-secularist totalitarian ideology. There’s a reason why the attacks in Paris were focused on the most progressive, fun-loving parts of the city. In their statement, ISIS called the Eagles of Death Metal concert at the Bataclan “hundreds of idolaters participating in a party of perversity”. That’s a completely anti-secularist and anti-pluralist (as well as anti-sensual and anti-sexual) political message.
There is nothing ‘essentially’ religious or atheistic about totalitarianism, but totalitarianism is anti-secular.
Just a friendly bit of advice.
You do this sort of thing a lot. A person has no way of knowing where he can improve if you won’t spell out to him specifically where he falls short.
Take that however you want
I’m just saying
peace
America is not uniform wrt gun laws; in some states you can carry weapons openly or concealed; in others, you cannot. Also, in some states that have concealed carry, acquiring the license is very, very difficult.
According to a recent study, the six states that allow people to carry concealed guns without a permit have much lower murder and crime rates than the six states with the lowest gun-carry permit rates (23% lower murder rate, 12% lower violent crime rate). The 25 states with the highest carry permit issuance have lower murder and violent crime rates than the other 25 states.
Examination of permit issuance records show that murder rates fall as more and more adults have carry permits. Data indicates that for each 1% increase in carry permits there is a corresponding 1.4% decrease in the murder rate.
Also, the number of carry permits being revoked among legally armed and carrying citizens for firearm violations in Texas and Florida (two states that have easily accessible data) from 2007 to May 2014 is .00007 percent. That’s much, much less than the firearms violations committed by the police.
So, law-abiding citizens carrying firearms is not a problem and it helps reduce violent crime. That’s a well-established fact. Also, our police carry firearms. In Garland, TX, two terrorists were stopped by armed police before they killed a single person. Legally owned guns are used every day to prevent or stop criminals every day.
So, of those gun-related deaths you cite, a negligible portion of them are committed by lawful gun owners; they’re being committed by criminals with illegally possessed firearms largely in areas which do not allow law-abiding citizens to easily buy and carry firearms for self-protection.
Wow, that kind of backfired on you, didn’t it?
Kantian Naturalist,
If by secularist you mean that church and state should be separate we agree. That sort of secularism is actually a core tenant of my faith
If in the other hand by secularist you mean that God has no place in the public square then I would argue that communism was profoundly secular.
peace
EL & Keith:
Apparently both of you entirely missed the point which I spelled it out above when I said: “I can hardly speak on behalf of all theists, but IMO the most well-argued current and historical theists would certainly not classify god, the ground of existence, as “someone else”.”
My point was not that god did not create humans for a purpose, but that god was not a “someone else”. Of course everything is created for a purpose; it’s not, however, created by “someone else”.
Keith is once again quote-mining, and EL is apparently endorsing that quote-mining with her “lol”. I guess EL is just as interested in cheap, rhetorical “gotcha” points as anyone else here.
I have no problem with religions in the public sphere — note the plural, religions. But I do have a huge problem if any one religion has a louder “voice” in the public sphere than any other.
EL said:
There is no “figuring out” what is right without theism, because the basis for “what is right” is presumed subjective – which makes it just as disastrous as DCT. People are free in principle to just make up their own morality to suit whatever purpose they desire.
William,
Blurt and backpedal.
Kantian Naturalist,
And Eagles of Death Metal aren’t even a Death Metal band. They aren’t even a Metal band (according to My-Son-The-Band-Reviewer). Wiki describes their genre as, ironically “desert rock”.
“is presumed” by whom?
And what is “objective” about your choice of God?
I appreciate your concern but I am much closer to Barcelona than Paris. I’m hesitant to comment on the incident, what was and wasn’t done, what should and should be done until more details emerge. Just to correct a matter of fact, officers of the French law-and-order force, La Gendarmerie, normally carry weapons and are well-trained in their use. Paris is policed by the Police Nationale (and they also are routinely armed on duty), under the control of the Interior Ministry (gendarmes are a paramilitary force under the Defence Ministry). I expect all serving members will now be carrying weapons whether off-duty or on.
ETA clarity
Pretty much everything you say here about me is wrong, but then you probably remember more about what keith’s erroneously claims about me via his quote-mining than you remember anything I actually write at this site.
I would agree as long as we treat atheism (and secularism) as we would any other system of beliefs.
The more the merrier IMO. The truth will rise to the surface.
If on the other hand we limit the places that certain beliefs are allowed to be expressed everyone suffers.
That is what happens in communist societies and lots of other “politically correct” institutions.
peace
God may not be “someone else”, William, but nor am I God. So I’d say this is a bit of a semantic nitpick. My point was very straightforward: Just as I can have a purpose that is at odds with the purpose of the god who created me, I can also have a purpose that still exists without the assumption the existence of a god who created me for a purpose.
Well, it did seem quite funny!
But I do accept that out-of-context quotes can make people look as though they are contradicting themselves when they aren’t. Perhaps you could explain that to Mung?
No.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222
But apart from anything else,
You can’t compare insane with insane. So what, some parts of the USA are less insane than others? That’s to be expected I guess, as not everyone will be as corrupted by the lies of the right wing ammosexuals as you are.
That you’ve normalised the current level of gun violence in your society speaks only to the effectiveness of organisations like the NRA at propaganda.
Why don’t you try comparing the state with the lowest level of gun violence with an equivalent population in a different country that does not fetishize gun ownership?
If you did, you’d say, ow, that kind of backfired on me, didn’t it?
EL asks:
Are you going to claim there is an objective (meaning, exists whether or not anyone agrees about it) basis for morality? If not, then such a basis is presumed subjective in nature.
Good grief, EL. Personal choices are never “objective”; they are either concerning something assumed (or believed) to be objective in nature or assumed (or believed) to be subjective in nature.
Atheism is NOT a “system of beliefs” unless you are thinking of a tiny subset of atheists who claim to believe that there is no god or gods
Atheism, more generally, is simply lack of belief in a god or gods. To describe it as a “belief system” is to seriously miscategorise it. Your belief system includes the lack of belief (presumably) that the tenets of hinduism are true. But you define your belief system in terms of what you DO belief, not in the infinite number of things that you do NOT believe, but could, conceivably, be part of someone’s “belief system”.
The fact that you think I am making a semantic nitpick demonstrates the shallowness of your perspective on theism and your utter lack of understanding of my theism and the theism of many, many others who, for the most part, share this view of god as ground of all being, intent and existence.
Again, I ask: “is presumed” by whom? It would be SO much easier to understand what you were saying, William, if you would write in the active voice!
Exactly. So taking a theistic stance takes exactly as much subjectivity as taking a non-theistic stance.
So there’s no advantage gained. In both cases, we have to figure out what is right from what we can see to be wrong. And as “harm” is almost coterminous with “wrong”, it’s a good place to start. If it hurts, it’s bad. If it prevents a creature functioning it’s bad. So Hippocrates was on the button with “First, Do No Harm” – and it doesn’t require the assumption of theism.
It may still be a subjective choice of premise, but then all choices will be, as you appear to agree.
When you say “theism” what you actually mean is “What I think” don’t you? You’ve not read the bible, so you can’t be getting your religion from there. I guess you must be a prophet, inventing your own religion.
What sort of rules will your religion have? Everyone owns a gun, by law?
So you think atheism should have a privileged place in the public square?
peace
Well, there is no possible rebuttal to that, William, so we’d better leave it there.
But I will end by suggesting that you consider that a point to which there CAN be no rebuttal may not be a very good point.
I hear the screams of the logic you had to torture to get to that.
William has previously indicated that, to him, logic, arguments, truth, evidence, etc. is irrelevant. Why should I bother going into details here? I just wanted to note my own opinion that his post was nonsense. He can take that for what it’s worth–to him, nothing at all presumably.
Given it’s all private to you and made up by you, how can anyone else understand it? Do you have your thoughts on the matter written down in a book or blog? Or do you expect others to read every comment you post on every blog? You don’t do those things, yet complain when people can’t read your mind. Whiner.
You’d be surprised.
phoodoo,
I’m catching up since yesterday, so please excuse me if someone else has already challenged this.
Atheism is simply lack of belief in a god or gods. Given the utter and complete lack of evidence for any remotely god-like entity over the millennia that humans have been inventing gods, this is a completely rational position.
If you disagree, please present an operational definition of “god” that would allow an objective observer to distinguish between a god and a not god then provide the objective, empirical evidence that such an entity exists.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/media/poi/images/o-RICHARD-DAWKINS-RACIST-facebook.jpg
William,
Again, you’re contradicting yourself. In 2013, you wrote:
Who created humans for a purpose? According to you it was God, who is “a purposeful being.” You didn’t create humans, and neither did I. Someone else — the “purposeful being” — did it.
This isn’t the first time you’ve unwittingly heaped scorn on your own stated position, and it won’t be the last. Get over it.
I kind of agree with OMagain that William’s “positions” aren’t sufficiently coherent to be self-contradictory.
Fifthmonarchyman’s “atheism” towards every named god except his preferred christian god already has a privileged place in the public square in small towns and big cities all across the USA, not just in the “bible belt”. Note that he has no desire or plan to change that and – knowing his sect – would scream bloody murder when anyone tries to roll back their christian privilege.
He doesn’t have enough empathy to understand why a copy of the ten commandments in the courthouse might worry a Sikh or Hindu (atheists towards the christian god) as to whether they can get impartial justice in such a system.
KN is not right about this, that all religions should be welcomed in the public square. No religions should be. The only stance which is impartial towards all gods, which is impartial to all those who are atheist towards whichever god they were not raised with, which is impartial to all forms of theism and all forms of atheism, is the stance of No Religion in public. No religious displays, no crosses on public lands …
Of course religious fanatics like fifthmonarchyman will interpret that total secularism as atheism having more privilege instead of actual fairness to all. But then, people like that won’t be happy until we all kowtow to their particular god – which will be never! So let ’em whine.
Sad but not surprising note:
Militant Islamists targeted the original “desert rock” band Tinariwen – Tuareg persons from Mali playing traditional tunes with electric guitars – and in 2013/2014 members of the band fled to US/Europe.
Here’s a video of them performing in Paris in May 2014. One of their famous songs starts about 7:05.
Hypnotic. I’m a huge fan but I’ll say in advance their style is not for everyone.
Not quite right, I think. Here, “the public square” does not refer to official acts of government. Rather, it is the common areas where people can meet and talk to one another.
Would you categorize Solipsism as simply a lack of belief in the world outside your mind?
peace
Do you think it praying in a restaurant should be outlawed? What about sharing your faith on the internet? What about door to door evangelism or religious bumper stickers or tee-shirts?
Christian clubs on campus or place of employment?
peace
I wonder if hotshoe is in favor of religious speech in public at all?
I would like to see her justification of her position whatever it is.
peace
walto,
That makes sense to me.
quick questions
Do you think Dawkin’s views reflect the tenets of atheism or do you think he deviates wildly from those tenets?
Could you see someone like Dawkins forbidding religious teaching to children if he was in charge (for example)?
Would such behavior be consistent or inconsistent with his atheism?
peace
synonyms: principle, belief, doctrine, precept, creed, credo, article of faith, dogma, canon, rule; More
http://fox2now.com/2015/11/03/class-controversy-parents-worried-course-on-islam-teaches-religion/
Omagain said:
Nice try, but the issue is murder and violent crime rates, not a “gun violence” comparison. You pick the country you’d like to compare murder and violent crime rates against a US state and we’ll see what we get.
OMagain,
not sure what your point is
Do you understand the difference between government sanctioned instruction and private religious teaching?
peace
No, I’m not. You’re just doing your usual quote-mining schtick.