Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

MaxWig · 02-04-2015 08:57AM

marienbad wrote: »

Completely different argument tommy but still I agree with you .I am not saying the Christianity is the only ideology that seeks control. But is it the ideology that has dominated this country for the last 70 years .

Europe has done better because the Enlightment values have progressed and progressed and religions has faded accordingly.

Apart from the 2 World Wars?

Peregrinus · 02-04-2015 09:02AM

silverharp wrote: »

We have reason to judge whether a policy or ethic is sensible or just.

Yes. But you can employ that reason to judge whether a policy or ethic is sensible or just regardless of whether those proposing the policy or ethic have a religious motive for doing so. So this consideration suggests that you have no need of, or excuse for, any general principle that religious policies/ethics should be disregarded. They can be judged against the same criteria as non-religious policies or ethics.

(If, of course, we can agree what those criteria are. You suggest that the criterion should be "is it just?", bu this brings us back to the same problem. How are you going to demonstrate that your concept of justice is true or valid, and someone else's is wrong?)

silverharp wrote: »

One would normally see some attempt at balancing or weighting rights. Religious people come at many issues with an absolute position based on what they think would annoy a deity for which there is no evidence for. Which is a more reasonable position for cresting rules in a society?

Well, a caricature like this isn't much or a reasonable position for creating rules in a society. The notion that religious ethics is largely driven by "an absolute position based on what they think would annoy a deity" just isn't borne out by observation of the real world. One of the most striking things we note when we look at religious and non-religious ethical systems is how similar they are, both in their outcomes (disapproval of murder, theft, lying, cheating; affirmation of functional social and familial relationships) and in their values (affirmation of altruism; condemnation of selfishness) and in their principles (e.g. the golden rule). And if we look at arguments advanced by religious ethicists, they are full of appeals to reason and to experience, in much the way that non-religious ethical positions are framed. I'm not saying that there are no differences at all - we couldn't possibly have a diversity of religious and non-religious ethical positions if there were no differences - but there really isn't a great fault line between religious and non-religious ethical reasoning, or outcomes.

tommy2bad · 02-04-2015 09:04AM

SW wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Fixed up the last few posts I found with bad quote tags. It actually looked like multiple posts were mis-representing other posters due to the error.

Just something to watch out for if you're quoting a post as part of your reply.

Thanks for your attention.

I've noticed this happening when using android, the reply remain inside the quote box. I'm replying on android now so let's see if it happens.

Seems fixed, happy days!

silverharp · 02-04-2015 09:05AM

MaxWig wrote: »

How so? Both are based on fictions, and argued for and against by us.

Isn't the point that while we might say that the 'World' is indifferent, we certainly can't say that humans are.
My reading of the fall is just that, While once we were indifferent, and as a result free from 'sin' and 'irrationality' - we then became conscious (human) and now we are not.

But that's just putting simplistic labels on a process spanning hundreds of thousands of years.

Peregrinus · 02-04-2015 09:09AM

MaxWig wrote: »

Apart from the 2 World Wars?

And terrorism? Terrorism is notably a product of the enlightenment.

silverharp · 02-04-2015 09:17AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. But you can employ that reason to judge whether a policy or ethic is sensible or just regardless of whether those proposing the policy or ethic have a religious motive for doing so. So this consideration suggests that you have no need of, or excuse for, any general principle that religious policies/ethics should be disregarded. They can be judged against the same criteria as non-religious policies or ethics.

(If, of course, we can agree what those criteria are. You suggest that the criterion should be "is it just?", bu this brings us back to the same problem. How are you going to demonstrate that your concept of justice is true or valid, and someone else's is wrong?)

Well, a caricature like this isn't much or a reasonable position for creating rules in a society. The notion that religious ethics is largely driven by "an absolute position based on what they think would annoy a deity" just isn't borne out by observation of the real world. One of the most striking things we note when we look at religious and non-religious ethical systems is how similar they are, both in their outcomes (disapproval of murder, theft, lying, cheating; affirmation of functional social and familial relationships) and in their values (affirmation of altruism; condemnation of selfishness) and in their principles (e.g. the golden rule). And if we look at arguments advanced by religious ethicists, they are full of appeals to reason and to experience, in much the way that non-religious ethical positions are framed. I'm not saying that there are no differences at all - we couldn't possibly have a diversity of religious and non-religious ethical positions if there were no differences - but there really isn't a great fault line between religious and non-religious ethical reasoning, or outcomes.

But take an issue like divorce . a pure religious proposition is that men and women are magically joined for eternity. If there was any evidence of this I would look at the issue differently. As it is we have two humans with equal rights to safety and the right to try to find happiness as they see it taking into consideration the rights of any children etc.
Most people would agree that stable family life is a good thing and should be given every assistance.
The best thing a religious person can say is that they don't have the right to impose their views on anyone that doesn't believe them but the history in Ireland shows that this was not how the church thought.

silverharp · 02-04-2015 09:24AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

And terrorism? Terrorism is notably a product of the enlightenment.

Not the Peoples Front of Judea?

Peregrinus · 02-04-2015 09:34AM

silverharp wrote: »

But take an issue like divorce . a pure religious proposition is that men and women are magically joined for eternity. If there was any evidence of this I would look at the issue differently. As it is we have two humans with equal rights to safety and the right to try to find happiness as they see it taking into consideration the rights of any children etc.

Actually, I think you have chosen a poor example for your case.

First, it's not a religious proposition that "men and women are magically joined for eternity". Marriage is a social construct, not a religious one, and it's created by couples entering into serious, binding, enduring, mutual commitments to one another. Nothing inherently religious about that.

When marriages don't work out, we have a tension between (at least) two ethical precepts - (a) a person should stick to the commitments they have made, even if they don't work out as the person expected or hoped, and (b) a person has the right to seek their own happiness/welfare, even if it means breaking a commitment made to someone else. Again, there's nothing particularly religious about either of those ideas. In particular (a) is not a uniquely religious precept; in fact it's the foundation of the capitalist economic system. There is nothing which suggests that religious people must value (a) over (b), or that non-religious people must value (b) over (a). And in fact there is no shortage of religious traditions which accommodate or affirm divorce, including Judaism, Islam and at least some branches of Christianity.

silverharp wrote: »

The best thing a religious person can say is that they don't have the right to impose their views on anyone that doesn't believe them but the history in Ireland shows that this was not how the church thought.

Um, isn't all law a matter of views being imposed on people who may not share them? Laws are enforceable, that's the whole point; they bind you whether you like them or not. I'm not sure that religious people are particularly noted for enforcing their views through law more than non-religious people. Someone who uses the law to, e.g, force a baker to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples, or calls for this to happen, is imposing a view on the baker that the baker clearly doesn't share. Or, to go back to the example that you yourself picked, someone who obtains a divorce decree against their spouse is imposing a view on the spouse that the spouse may not share. Etc, etc.

silverharp · 02-04-2015 09:52AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, I think you have chosen a poor example for your case.

First, it's not a religious proposition that "men and women are magically joined for eternity". Marriage is a social construct, not a religious one, and it's created by couples entering into serious, binding, enduring, mutual commitments to one another. Nothing inherently religious about that.

When marriages don't work out, we have a tension between (at least) two ethical precepts - (a) a person should stick to the commitments they have made, even if they don't work out as the person expected or hoped, and (b) a person has the right to seek their own happiness/welfare, even if it means breaking a commitment made to someone else. Again, there's nothing particularly religious about either of those ideas. In particular (a) is not a uniquely religious precept; in fact it's the foundation of the capitalist economic system. There is nothing which suggests that religious people must value (a) over (b), or that non-religious people must value (b) over (a). And in fact there is no shortage of religious traditions which accommodate or affirm divorce, including Judaism, Islam and at least some branches of Christianity.

Um, isn't all law a matter of views being imposed on people who may not share them? Laws are enforceable, that's the whole point; they bind you whether you like them or not. I'm not sure that religious people are particularly noted for enforcing their views through law more than non-religious people. Someone who uses the law to, e.g, force a baker to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples, or calls for this to happen, is imposing a view on the baker that the baker clearly doesn't share. Or, to go back to the example that you yourself picked, someone who obtains a divorce decree against their spouse is imposing a view on the spouse that the spouse may not share. Etc, etc.

Yes marriage is a social construct. But Christians tried and did take ownership of the contract. I find your post odd as Christians do have a biblical position on it ie "what god has joined together......"
I'm not an expert on British history but didn't henry the eight get into a spot of bother because of the position of the church at the time. A rational society would view that contracts can be broken but there quite rightly might be consequences to it. So I view the christian position as laid out by Jesus to be incorrect. The fact that Christians have watered down their view on either divorce or remarrying again is amusing

marienbad · 02-04-2015 11:14AM

MaxWig wrote: »

Apart from the 2 World Wars?

I fail to see the connection ?

MaxWig · 02-04-2015 11:24AM

marienbad wrote: »

I fail to see the connection ?

Proposition: Europe has done better because the Enlightment values have progressed and progressed and religions has faded accordingly.

Response: Apart from 2 world wars.

silverharp · 02-04-2015 11:35AM

MaxWig wrote: »

Proposition: Europe has done better because the Enlightment values have progressed and progressed and religions has faded accordingly.

Response: Apart from 2 world wars.

Its a false proposition . technology and the sheer scale of industrial output moved on in the meantime . if Jews 3000 years ago had access to chemical or nuclear weapons , history would have been different. ;-)
There are issues in relation to the power of the individual versus the state in that a king didn't have the ability to engage in " total war". Said kings would probably have preferred to capture a town to raise taxes rather than blow it to bits.

MaxWig · 02-04-2015 11:47AM

silverharp wrote: »

Its a false proposition . technology and the sheer scale of industrial output moved on in the meantime . if Jews 3000 years ago had access to chemical or nuclear weapons , history would have been different. ;-)

Agreed, I was being facetious.

marienbad · 02-04-2015 11:51AM

MaxWig wrote: »

Proposition: Europe has done better because the Enlightment values have progressed and progressed and religions has faded accordingly.

Response: Apart from 2 world wars.

How do you know we mightn't have had three world wars ? That is the same logic as if that goal wasn't disallowed we would have won.

MaxWig · 02-04-2015 11:57AM

marienbad wrote: »

How do you know we mightn't have had three world wars ? That is the same logic as if that goal wasn't disallowed we would have won.

But saying Europe has done better because Religion has faded is a statement of fact?

marienbad · 02-04-2015 12:34PM

MaxWig wrote: »

But saying Europe has done better because Religion has faded is a statement of fact?

Sure, if you want to get all legalistic about it on a discussion forum . So let me rephrase it as a question - do you thing the Enlightenment was a good thing for Western Europe ?

MaxWig · 02-04-2015 12:39PM

marienbad wrote: »

Sure, if you want to get all legalistic about it on a discussion forum . So let me rephrase it as a question - do you thing the Enlightenment was a good thing for Western Europe ?

I believe that the development of technology and our continuing mastery of science has been, on the whole, a good thing - yes.

It has also brought us to the verge of extinction on a number of occasions, and may well yet push us over that edge.

The fading of religion on the other hand, has had a number of implications for the individual, which I think are less easy to quantify.

silverharp · 02-04-2015 12:49PM

MaxWig wrote: »

But saying Europe has done better because Religion has faded is a statement of fact?

basing society on a known myth would not be rational even if it was somehow shown to have some benefits. one of the reasons or even possible benefits of religion was to keep iron age peasants in line, it was a mechanism for control. At some stage the "training wheels" have to come off

MaxWig · 02-04-2015 01:10PM

silverharp wrote: »

basing society on a known myth would not be rational even if it was somehow shown to have some benefits.

one of the reasons or even possible benefits of religion was to keep iron age peasants in line, it was a mechanism for control. At some stage the "training wheels" have to come off

I love this line of reasoning.

It's as though you believe religion was concocted in a room somewhere by some dodgy characters, who then emerged holding a book and telling everyone what to do

Religion was no guarantee of power. That's the point. Plenty of kings were slaughtered for failing to measure up - it mattered little that they claimed to be a god, or a representation of a god, or a spokesperson for a god.
As soon as they were no longer required, well, off with the head etc.

If (wo)men are slaves, so are leaders.

Basing society on a myth doesn't happen - there is, and always has been an order - it is not an order based on god or science, but on the the reality of existence and the struggle for survival.

silverharp · 02-04-2015 01:31PM

MaxWig wrote: »

I love this line of reasoning.

It's as though you believe religion was concocted in a room somewhere by some dodgy characters, who then emerged holding a book and telling everyone what to do

Religion was no guarantee of power. That's the point. Plenty of kings were slaughtered for failing to measure up - it mattered little that they claimed to be a god, or a representation of a god, or a spokesperson for a god.
As soon as they were no longer required, well, off with the head etc.

If (wo)men are slaves, so are leaders.

Basing society on a myth doesn't happen - there is, and always has been an order - it is not an order based on god or science, but on the the reality of existence and the struggle for survival.

It would be neat if it was that easy for sure. I'm sure most kings didn't care too much what the peasants got up to in the bedroom gor instsnce but its very convenient alltogher that religions like to have power over the people by relating by revelation from a deity what they can or can't get up too in the bedroom or anywhere else and that any deviation will offend the gods

MaxWig · 02-04-2015 03:05PM

silverharp wrote: »

It would be neat if it was that easy for sure. I'm sure most kings didn't care too much what the peasants got up to in the bedroom gor instsnce but its very convenient alltogher that religions like to have power over the people by relating by revelation from a deity what they can or can't get up too in the bedroom or anywhere else and that any deviation will offend the gods

Why is it convenient?
In that it can't be countered?

What is the benefit of that particular belief to the leadership though?

silverharp · 02-04-2015 04:16PM

MaxWig wrote: »

Why is it convenient?
In that it can't be countered?

What is the benefit of that particular belief to the leadership though?

As a way of controlling people. Compare a priest to say a professional psychologist . the latter I would expect to offer advice but not demand I behave a particular way , the former pretends to know what is behind the curtain and uses that to instill fear and to control the people.
It suits the powers that be as they can use the religious power to give them credibility etc.
Why did Hitler and other fascists do deals with the Catholic church? Why did the US put "in god we trust" on the money and change the pledge of allegiance during the cold war to include a reference to god?

Angrybastard · 02-04-2015 05:36PM

silverharp wrote: »

basing society on a known myth would not be rational even if it was somehow shown to have some benefits. one of the reasons or even possible benefits of religion was to keep iron age peasants in line, it was a mechanism for control. At some stage the "training wheels" have to come off

Agreed.
Knowledge, even if it's uncomfortable, is always preferable to faith.

tommy2bad · 02-04-2015 06:21PM

silverharp wrote: »

basing society on a known myth would not be rational even if it was somehow shown to have some benefits. one of the reasons or even possible benefits of religion was to keep iron age peasants in line, it was a mechanism for control. At some stage the "training wheels" have to come off

Depends on how you define rational. If the benefits of basing a society on a myth outnumber the disadvantages, it supremely rational to do so. If as I suspect their is no other way to build a foundation to a society then it's not only rational but necessary to do so.
I can't think of any society that isn't based on one myth or other. Our own nation is based on myths.

I do agree though with the traiinging wheels analogy. In fact it would be interesting to see if the church Jesus founded could stand without the scaffolding of the institutional church.

silverharp · 02-04-2015 07:10PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Depends on how you define rational. If the benefits of basing a society on a myth outnumber the disadvantages, it supremely rational to do so. If as I suspect their is no other way to build a foundation to a society then it's not only rational but necessary to do so.
I can't think of any society that isn't based on one myth or other. Our own nation is based on myths.

I do agree though with the traiinging wheels analogy. In fact it would be interesting to see if the church Jesus founded could stand without the scaffolding of the institutional church.

I would disagree in the sense that innocent people suffer if a society create a false set of "wrongs". and I guess you do create a discontinuity if values change but the institutions dont keep up because they have a foot in 2 camps.

You might enjoy this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s

katydid · 02-04-2015 08:47PM

silverharp wrote: »

As a way of controlling people. Compare a priest to say a professional psychologist . the latter I would expect to offer advice but not demand I behave a particular way , the former pretends to know what is behind the curtain and uses that to instill fear and to control the people.

I'm never heard of a priest pretending to know "what is behind the curtain". The role of the priest is to be a guide and a pastor. Just because some priests take it upon themselves to take on other roles doesn't mean that is their role.

hinault · 02-04-2015 08:55PM

silverharp wrote: »

As a way of controlling people. Compare a priest to say a professional psychologist . the latter I would expect to offer advice but not demand I behave a particular way , the former pretends to know what is behind the curtain and uses that to instill fear and to control the people

Baloney.

Look, if I go to speak to a priest, at confession or outside confession, I do so freely. I take the initiative and I make the decision to seek out and to speak to the priest.

I am, like anyone else, entirely free to accept or to reject what that priest may say to me.

In all likelihood, just like attending a professional such as a psychologist, I will follow the advice that the psychologist gives me, or the advice that the priest gives me, or the advice that the solicitor gives me.

silverharp wrote: »

Why did Hitler and other fascists do deals with the Catholic church? Why did the US put "in god we trust" on the money and change the pledge of allegiance during the cold war to include a reference to god?

Like Napoleon, Hitler thought that he could buy domestic approval by entering Germany in to a concordat with the Vatican.

MaxWig · 02-04-2015 10:06PM

silverharp wrote:

"As a way of controlling people. Compare a priest to say a professional psychologist . the latter I would expect to offer advice but not demand I behave a particular way , the former pretends to know what is behind the curtain and uses that to instill fear and to control the people."

The psychologist analogy is a good one. The priest may say you're soul is sick. The devil got ya.
The psychologist, that the way you think is disordered - your experience of the world faulty.
Only one is employed by the state to ensure that those deemed disordered or dangerous are tranquillised.

"It suits the powers that be as they can use the religious power to give them credibility etc. Why did Hitler and other fascists do deals with the Catholic church? Why did the US put "in god we trust" on the money and change the pledge of allegiance during the cold war to include a reference to god?"

They don't need religious power. They have the flag and the anthem which is the same thing. And people are quite happy to lay down their lives for their Nation. Power isn't bled from people. It's offered up freely in exchange for unfreedom. Anything - but to be an individual. It's too frightening to stand in freedom from everything.

marienbad · 02-04-2015 10:40PM

hinault wrote: »

Baloney.

Look, if I go to speak to a priest, at confession or outside confession, I do so freely. I take the initiative and I make the decision to seek out and to speak to the priest.

I am, like anyone else, entirely free to accept or to reject what that priest may say to me.

In all likelihood, just like attending a professional such as a psychologist, I will follow the advice that the psychologist gives me, or the advice that the priest gives me, or the advice that the solicitor gives me.

Like Napoleon, Hitler thought that he could buy domestic approval by entering Germany in to a concordat with the Vatican.

And the Vatican thought it could preserve its position by entering into a concordat with Hitler ,thus making a pact with the Devil .

indioblack · 03-04-2015 10:00AM

MaxWig wrote: »

How so? Both are based on fictions, and argued for and against by us.

Isn't the point that while we might say that the 'World' is indifferent, we certainly can't say that humans are.
My reading of the fall is just that, While once we were indifferent, and as a result free from 'sin' and 'irrationality' - we then became conscious (human) and now we are not.

Imagine, for example, that you are an Irish nationalist. I could interact with you. It should be possible to prove you're real! You would have some basis for your nationalist feelings - Ireland is a real, physical place. From then on arguments could be made for and against your ideals.
I agree with your second point - I didn't mean to imply that people are indifferent.
Your third point is interesting. Would you say that consciousness is at the root of this?

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments