Unruly Passengers

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point
of view.

Wrong.

You know, few religious types exercise as much faith in their beliefs as
you
do in yours.

Come back and we'll talk when you learn the proper definitions of
terms...such as "faith", "religion", "belief"...

All I am saying is that wanting to deny people a political voice simply on
the grounds of religious belief exhibits a level of intolerance bordering on
fanaticism. You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...


Come back and we'll talk when you learn the proper definitions of
terms...such as "faith", "religion", "belief"...

All I am saying is that wanting to deny people a political voice simply on
the grounds of religious belief exhibits a level of intolerance bordering
on
fanaticism.

And nothing I've said indicates I want to deny them a voice. What we cannot
tolerate is trying to foist a non-objective view of morality into the
politcal process, whether it's the religion of the Bible or of Marxism.

You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.

Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more and
more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old wives
tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that
religionist have been spouting for centuries.

Until you realize the difference between a belief and a DISBELIEF, between
one based on faith and one based on evidence, you can take those aspersions
and stick them where the sun don't shine. Try digging outside the sources
targeting the so called "choir".

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...


Come back and we'll talk when you learn the proper definitions of
terms...such as "faith", "religion", "belief"...

All I am saying is that wanting to deny people a political voice simply
on
the grounds of religious belief exhibits a level of intolerance
bordering
on
fanaticism.

And nothing I've said indicates I want to deny them a voice. What we
cannot
tolerate is trying to foist a non-objective view of morality into the
politcal process, whether it's the religion of the Bible or of Marxism.

You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.

Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more and
more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old
wives
tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that
religionist have been spouting for centuries.

No more nauseating or trite than that there is an objective view of
morality, or that a non-religious view of morality is somehow more objective
than a religious one. Really, if you want to talk about old wives tales, try
looking at the lines the non-religionists have been spouting for centuries.


Until you realize the difference between a belief and a DISBELIEF, between
one based on faith and one based on evidence

I am not sure that you realize the difference yourself. Allow me to
illustrate. Perhaps you believe it is wrong to kill in order to take things
that do not belong to you. What evidence do you have that it is wrong to do
that? Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you would
consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
[...]
I am not sure that you realize the difference yourself. Allow me to
illustrate. Perhaps you believe it is wrong to kill in order to take
things
that do not belong to you. What evidence do you have that it is wrong to
do
that? Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you
would
consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system.

You can't be serious. Our lawbooks are filled with faith-based imposition
of morality. From blue laws restricting what kinds of businesses can
operate when, to laws governing sexual conduct between two consenting
adults, to the latest hot topic regarding gay marriage.

Tom is all wet trying to claim atheism isn't a religon, of course. It's
every bit a religion as any other belief that has no factual proof to
support it. No one's proven there is a God, but neither has anyone proved
there isn't one. An atheist is taking the belief of a lack of a God every
bit on faith as a Christian takes the belief of existence of God on faith.

People will disagree on what sorts of actions have victims and what sorts
don't, of course, and I won't be surprised if you don't think my examples of
faith-based imposition of morality aren't examples at all. Suffice to say I
will never agree with you that they aren't, and I feel strongly that we
shouldn't have laws like those that don't involve an actual victim and serve
only to impose one person's arbitrary rules of conduct on another.
Invariably those laws always turn out to have their basis in some Christian
belief, rather than a demonstrable harm one person does to another.

Pete

Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you would
consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system.

How about not being able to able to buy beer on sunday morning?

If that aint a religous based law I dont know what is...

Blll

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.

Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more
and
more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old
wives
tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that
religionist have been spouting for centuries.

No more nauseating or trite than that there is an objective view of
morality, or that a non-religious view of morality is somehow more
objective
than a religious one. Really, if you want to talk about old wives tales,
try
looking at the lines the non-religionists have been spouting for
centuries.

But I think there are parts of this discussion that are foundering on
semantics. I'd assert that there are many people have deep reasons for
acting morally, with roots that are almost ineffable but have nothing to do
with the various belief systems that we commonly think of as religions. If
the root is pure humanism, or the belief that what we call God is an
immanent creation of the entire human experience - I suppose you could call
those religions because they involve some non-rational basis (hence the
semantic confusion). You could also construct a Darwinian derivation of
morals, where the organism that is struggling to survive is the society, and
an ethical code (one we would recognize as such) turns out to be a positive
adaptation.

I'd like to pursue (and I've been trying hard to stay off these non-flying
threads): do you think we cannot have ethics or morals without appealing to
the influence of a Christian God and the associated spiritual life? Or do
you at least require some externally existent (in some sense) and
influential spiritual force? How about the internally located forces of
Buddhism? Do you deny the possiblity of secular humanism being a valid
wellspring of morals, even if it happens to lead to a secular St Francis?

If you say a humanist can't be ethical or moral, I'm starting to object. If
you say a humanist can act ethically or morally, but what matters is that
they aren't moral inside: well, I've heard that assertion and I don't buy
it. Maybe it's a question of definition again.

-- David Brooks

Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you would
consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system.

Restrictions on abortion.
Laws against sodomy.
Laws against unmarried couples living together.
Prohibition
Drug laws
The original calls for government welfare in the US (1890's)
....
Hell, anything out of the mouth of Pat Robertson or Pat Buchannan...

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.

Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more
and
more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old
wives
tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that
religionist have been spouting for centuries.

No more nauseating or trite than that there is an objective view of
morality, or that a non-religious view of morality is somehow more
objective
than a religious one. Really, if you want to talk about old wives tales,
try
looking at the lines the non-religionists have been spouting for
centuries.

Such as? For some reason their words don't get out that much...something
about holy wars and purges...


But I think there are parts of this discussion that are foundering on
semantics.

Quite so. CJ doesn't comprehend what FAITH is (the acceptance of something
based on NO evidence, or even things counter to evidence) which is NOT the
way to invoke policy.

I'd assert that there are many people have deep reasons for
acting morally, with roots that are almost ineffable but have nothing to
do
with the various belief systems that we commonly think of as religions.

And that's fine as long as they keep it to themselves. Religions are beliefs
primarily based on what we often call "superstitions" and revelations.


If
the root is pure humanism, or the belief that what we call God is an
immanent creation of the entire human experience - I suppose you could
call
those religions because they involve some non-rational basis (hence the
semantic confusion).

Yeah...IF.

You could also construct a Darwinian derivation of
morals, where the organism that is struggling to survive is the society,
and
an ethical code (one we would recognize as such) turns out to be a
positive
adaptation.

Yeah, you could, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny either.


I'd like to pursue (and I've been trying hard to stay off these non-flying
threads): do you think we cannot have ethics or morals without appealing
to
the influence of a Christian God and the associated spiritual life?

I'd say "most definitely"...for one thing, religion comes from human minds,
whether they want to call it a "revelation" or "too much pizza before bed".

Or do
you at least require some externally existent (in some sense) and
influential spiritual force?

That'd be fine if we want to mimic the Middle East and turn humankind back
3000-500 years and have the high priest or Plato's "Philosophy Kings".


How about the internally located forces of
Buddhism? Do you deny the possiblity of secular humanism being a valid
wellspring of morals, even if it happens to lead to a secular St Francis?

If you say a humanist can't be ethical or moral, I'm starting to object.

I'm with you.

If
you say a humanist can act ethically or morally, but what matters is that
they aren't moral inside: well, I've heard that assertion and I don't buy
it. Maybe it's a question of definition again.

Not even definitions; CJ's trying to lump counter arguments into a slot
(humanism...in the context of modern day secular humanism, which I find just
about as dense as faith/revelations) that he feels comfortable with. but
knows very little about in reality.

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

I'd like to pursue (and I've been trying hard to stay off these non-flying
threads): do you think we cannot have ethics or morals without appealing
to
the influence of a Christian God and the associated spiritual life?

Quite the contrary. I certainly agree that a humanist or other ethicist can
have ethics or morals without appealing to Deity, Christian or otherwise. My
point is that these ethics and morals are not necessarily more rational than
those derived from religion.

After all, if one argues that a god or gods, for whatever reason, wants to
'improve' humanity and prevent humans from harming themselves and each
other, then any 'commandments' emanating from such beings would tend to be
beneficial. An agnostic ethicist might come up with similar 'commandments'
for similar reasons.

Hence, where a religionist might say that buying a beer on Sunday violates
the commandments of God, an agnostic ethicist might decide that it is
beneficial to society overall to have at least one day a week where people
are not subjected to public drunkenness. Similar arguments can be made on
both sides concerning abortion, or any other issue supposedly of concern
only to the religious. You often find religious individuals, even those who
supposedly belong to the same sect, on both sides of an issue like that. You
find the same thing of humanists. In the end it comes down to faith -- a
belief of what is right or wrong without any real evidence to support it.
After all, it can be argued that the survival of the human race would be a
bad thing, and you will find both religious people and humanists who will in
fact strongly assert that very position.

But what is the real difference between the two positions? An atheist must
assume that we are nothing more than random sacks of chemicals. Our actions
must necessarily be of almost infinitely small consequence to the universe.
What does it matter what happens to any of us? Why should we care about
ourselves, let alone others? The religionist answers that we care because we
are commanded to. The ethicist answers that we care for evolutionary
reasons. The real difference comes down to free will. The religionist
believes in free will and personal responsibility. The atheist in the end
must say that free will is, at best, an illusion -- just as the development
of our individual species is guided by the dead hand of natural selection,
so the development of our society is guided by the dead hand of the
collective menes. Personal responsibility is a sham and merely a convenience
for the operation of the menes.

It seems contradictory to me to say that on the one hand religion stifles
freedom and on the other to deny that freedom exists at all, yet not only do
many humanists take this position, so do many religions. If the religious
person should have any advantage at all over the secular humanist, it is
that the religious person should be more pro-active in seizing control of
our evolutionary destiny social development. The reason most religions have
not done that is that they are more rooted in Medieval philosophy than in
any real belief in God. They are in fact rooted in secularism rather than in
faith. The religions of the world are in some respects more atheistic than
even the atheists, often without the tempering influence of humanism. If
these religions are sensitive to the humanists' accusations that they are
more interested in accumulating wealth and power than they are in actually
improving humanity, it is because those charges have considerable merit.
Even their creeds describe God in terms little better than outright deism;
often they are much worse. Their vision of God is so impossibly
contradictory that they have practically defined a belief in God out of
existence. I believe that many atheists are much closer to God than they
realize, just as many religious individuals are much further away from God
than they realize.

Viktor Frankl pointed out that there are really only two kinds of people --
those that derive meaning in life from their relationships with others and
those that derive meaning in life from only from the power and control they
exercise over others. I think you will find both types of people in all
religions as well in all varieties of secularists.

I have to admit that I enjoy this discussion, even though it is off topic. I
would not ordinarily have bothered, but any suggestion that religious views
have no place in the political landscape strikes me as too dangerous to go
unchallenged. It is that kind of thinking that leads to concentration camps
and genocide.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

I'd like to pursue (and I've been trying hard to stay off these
non-flying
threads): do you think we cannot have ethics or morals without appealing
to
the influence of a Christian God and the associated spiritual life?

Quite the contrary. I certainly agree that a humanist or other ethicist
can
have ethics or morals without appealing to Deity, Christian or otherwise.
My
point is that these ethics and morals are not necessarily more rational
than
those derived from religion.
....
But what is the real difference between the two positions? An atheist must
assume that we are nothing more than random sacks of chemicals. Our
actions
must necessarily be of almost infinitely small consequence to the
universe.
What does it matter what happens to any of us? Why should we care about
ourselves, let alone others? The religionist answers that we care because
we
are commanded to. The ethicist answers that we care for evolutionary
reasons.

No, I think that's a mischaracterization, although I'll struggle to find the
right pithy words. But while doing so I'll hand a freebee to your side of
the argument, Chris. The many people today who are areligious but moral and
ethical (there are many in Europe, for example) are practicing a form of
secular humanism whether they like it or not. This makes secularism look
good, because it is coming up with good results (hey, I know that's a value
judgement, but let's assume we all agree on basic definitions of goodness;
we seem to; even we liberals aren't all moral relativists). The challenge to
that view is that we are living in a moment of history where, even if
Christianity is dying in some societies, the results of the, forgive me,
indoctrination brought about by its teachings are still strong influences in
the society. To be concrete, my grandmother and all my elementary school
teachers were Golden Rule Christians, so how can I behave otherwise; I got
wired. How long can that meme survive without the influence of an externally
applied Spirit? I don't know. There is scant opportunity to look for an
answer by studying historically pagan societies that are otherwise parallel.

Viktor Frankl pointed out that there are really only two kinds of
people --
those that derive meaning in life from their relationships with others and
those that derive meaning in life from only from the power and control
they
exercise over others. I think you will find both types of people in all
religions as well in all varieties of secularists.

Many Christians are perfectly clear that there is at least a third kind:
those that derive meaning in life from their relationship with Jesus. Today
it often seems to be a personal buddy relationship, so it might resolve to
Frankl's first group. But there is a more traditional mystical relationship,
often found in the monastery, that I think is genuinely different.

I have to admit that I enjoy this discussion, even though it is off topic.
I
would not ordinarily have bothered, but any suggestion that religious
views
have no place in the political landscape strikes me as too dangerous to go
unchallenged. It is that kind of thinking that leads to concentration
camps
and genocide.

Sorry, I must side with Tom on this one, although with less vituperation,
and with the caveat I referred to above: maybe contemporary secular views
are religious views we can't shake.

I hope you don't object to the trimming: I just wanted to respond in
specific places.

-- David Brooks