Atheism and religion

[MxM]

Originally posted by lebensraum

hmmm

when i first read this, i thought you were heading towards one of those "the way, the truth and the life" statements. "truth" is a definite buzz-word for christianity and i have tried hard to avoid it thus far.

then i realised, you probably haven't visited damascus since your original post, so i have to admit, i have no idea what you're on about here. could you explain this one in slightly more detail please?

No, I did not refer to Christian Truth here. What I was saying is that some points of view are right and some are wrong. You sound as if all points of view, no matter how ridicules are they, are equally right. And the earth being hold by 3 elephants who stay on a see turtle is as valuable theory as astronomy. Yeah, right...

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by MxM
I will take liberty and describe theocracy as non-secular (religious) dictatorship.

Theocracies aren't necessarily dictatorships. For instance, in Iran, they have a theocratic republic with elected members of a parliament. I realize that in practice Iran is pretty close to a dictatorship (with the Ayatollah currently having too much power), but at least in theory they are a republic.

[lajzar]

And the the USSR had many political structures that would not be typically found in a real dictatorship.

[MxM]

Sure, not everything black or white. Practically all dictatorships have elements of democracy (parliaments, elections and so on). As for USSR, was it "dictatorship or the working class", by their own definition?

[Sava]

I agree with Guy

[Terra Nullius]

heyya mxm,

edit: hmm, last attempt at an answer was too heavy and not really focussed, i haven't deleted it, for the sake of consistency, but feel free to ignore the lot.

i really don't like the terms 'right' and 'wrong'.
valid, logically consistent, empirically verifiable and useful are all much better terms.

an example like "the earth moves around the sun" might be too broad to explain anything. it's more significant to say, for eg. "does a particular system make accurate predictions about the movement of stellar bodies?"

in this case, as an example, aztec atronomy was quite mythical in nature. the stellar bodies were described as being mythical foxes, jaguars and so on. nonetheless, it's predictions were, on the whole, quite accurate.

i feel it simply doesn't matter how you describe them. if a system makes accurate and useful predictions, then it is worthwhile. i don't personally care whether the aztecs thought the coal sac was a mythical fox, or a cloud nebula. it was sufficient for their purposes and made predictions which were useful for them at the time.

if a psychic sees spirits that no-one else is aware of, who is 'right' and who is 'wrong?'

i am really not interested in passing judgement in such cases. what interests me is understanding exactly how different people see the world. since it is an individual interpretation, 'right' and 'wrong' just don't apply.

anyhow that's all i've got for now, except to say that you might want to take a closer look at your fundamental assumptions before deciding on the validity of another system which might be based on completely different axioms.

original post follows, i don't think it's very well written, but feel free to read through it if you like.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

intention: i've got an exam tomorrow. so i'll make this quick (or maybe i'll just end up trolling 'poly all afternoon and fail my exam like usual ). so if the wording's not perfect, sue me.

Originally posted by MxM
What I was saying is that some points of view are right and some are wrong. You sound as if all points of view, no matter how ridicules are they, are equally right.

firstly, i would say that yes. all opinions no matter how ridiculous are all equally right. in this case, what i mean when i say 'right' is that all opinions have equall validity. they all have a right to be expressed.

if i have one opinion and you have another. then my opinion is always 'right.' ie. it really is my opinion . if you are trying to tell me what my opinion is then you are simply out of your tree.

ok. maybe if you are a hypnotherapist and you 'put me under' then it is possible you might actually know my opinion better than i do. but otherwise, it's simply ridiculous for you to say i am 'wrong' about my own opinion.

that was one of the problems i was pointing to in the above discussion. i was quite careful to put my statements in context. when i gave a personal opinion, i pointed out that it was what i considered to be true. for someone to come along afterwards and tell me that i do not know my own opinion is absurd.

nuff said

the other point is that am hoping to get us far enough to have a reasonable, if simplistic discussion of theology.

thomas aquinas classifies theological data/arguments into three broad categories. they are
i) that which can be discerned by the action of unaided human reason.
ii) that which might, with difficulty be discerned by natural human reason, but is made more easily accessible by virtue of faith and divine revelation.
iii) that which is unaccessible to human reason and can only be known through the action of faith and divine revelation.

let's leave the first category aside for now. the second two categories (roughly speaking) require the action of faith and divine revelation. i've already defined faith as a personal phenomenon. revelation is also, in my opinion, highly personal.

so, in at least two out of three categories, we are talking about something which is different for different people. a simple case of reality being dependent upon the observer.

so, according to scholastic theology, there may very well be a 'right' and a 'wrong' answer, but, as humans, it is simply beyond our capacity to know which is which.

the other question is one of scope.
it is not within the competency or scope of classical mechanics to judge the validity of mythology. they simply address different aspects of the human experience. it's comparing apples and oranges.

at the same time, there is sometimes a problem of conflicting scope. this is one of the reasons why i was pushing molly so hard to state his persective.

from the point of view of classical philosophy, there is a hierarchy of disciplines.
philosophy is the 'first science' as it were because it's level of abstraction and difficulty are greatest. then come the 'abstract' sciences such as mathematics, then the physical sciences and so on. so, for example, while a mathematician can criticise a physicist for using insuffucient or inaccurate formulae. you cannot use empirical, physical data to criticise the validity of mathematical reasoning. (similarly, a linguist cannot criticise a philosophical definition).

in some post-modern philosophies, however,
hiercharchies are deprecated and this careful ordering of the sciences is not accepted as being valid.
not only that, language is often taken to be a primal element . so discussions of any type are sometimes considered to be 'language games.' so, once again, if molly had stated that he was giving an opinion on the basis of some particular post-modern philosophy, then it would be quite fair to say that language supercedes logic and hence, his opinion overides my own. at least in the from his perspective.

briefly, from the point of view of classical philosophy, logic precedes language. but there are alternative viewpoints which hold that language precedes logic.

that is the sort of thing that can happen with conflicting scopes. acccording to one field of study, i might be 'right.' according to another, i am 'wrong.'

how you choose to resolve this problem in your own mind is up to you. my take on it is that, both disciplines have the potential to provide a correct answer. both disciplines should be considered on their own merits.

however, if i am making an argument in terms of (for eg.)buddhist philosophy, it would be invalid to use the principles of, say,classical philosophy to refute my argument.
(note: you might use classical philosophy to state your own argument and then demonstrate empirically that your conclusions are true and mine are not, however, you cannot use classical logic to criticise buddhist logic internal to a given argument).

bloody hell, i go on some!

hope that made some kind of sense.
other points to consider include:
any observation requires a point of view,
knowing your own assumptions. (eg."the earth moves around the sun" which is a statement of classical physics requires that "the earth exists" which is a statement of scholastic philosophy.)

[Addled Platypus]

lebensraum

I am totaly in your corner

FYI: rose colored glasses with side blinders

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by MxM
I think I found the reason for disagreement. I believe the above statement is strictly speaking incorrect. Here is why (from dictionary.com, edited for relevance):

Secular:
Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body

oooh - that is really close to hitting the nail on the head.

1) i agree that the statement may be incorrect, but i disagree with your reasons. in the context of civ4, i believe my statement is correct. but it is pure conjecture. the game isn't out yet, so we can only guess.

my impression is that 'theocracy' a la civ4 means that you 'encourage' the people to adopt a particular religion. but i could be completely wrong. it may mean something more like what molly was trying to say, where there is some sort of priesthood. perhaps it actually affects your ability to produce things like missionaries and so on.

in other words, it will really depend on what the game mechanics are, and i could be way off the mark. my statement is really just based on a 'best guess.'

so no, i don't think a dictionary will prove me wrong, but soren may very well do so.

2) the part that really tickles me is that after three pages of arguing about scope and method, i still haven't had a chance to state what my argument re:theocracy actually is. from my point of view at least, the above debate has nothing to do with "theocracy." yes, i'll say that again.

the above debate has nothing to do with theocracy.

what we have been arguing about is scope and method.

what are the sources of disagreement? (imo)
i) scope - i've already stated what i consider to be the scope. ie. all religious phenomena and beliefs within the seven chosen religions and, to a lesser extent, other minor religions, in particular paganism (default state).

molly has not so far offered an explanation of what he considers to be the scope of the discussion.

i assert that the scope is, in fact, so broad that no particular language or cognitive model is able to express everything within the scope.

molly seems to be assuming something like what you said - that there is a single objective truth, and there exists a single language and method appropriate to investigating that truth.

so that is one part of it - there is no explicit agreement on the scope of the discussion. and i have been forced to guess at what molly considers to be an appropriate language and cognitive model for discussing subjects within that scope.

ii) method - it's an inaccurate analogy, so please don't take this one too far, but...
the model i am proposing will be familiar to students of philosophy, mathematics and the physical sciences. the model molly is proposing is more in tune with the liberal arts.

put simply, definitions are commonly treated in a particular way within the liberal arts, and they are commonly treated in a different way within the sciences.

i don't know if molly really gets this, but he seems to be assuming that there is one, single and appropriate method. i certainly don't disagree with the validity of that method, but i am still waiting for an acknowledgement that it is only one method among others.

in brief, i think the disagreement is about
a) being able to state your assumptions
b) schoolyard antics based on the division between liberal arts and sciences

it really doesn't have anything to do with theocracy, because, as i said, i haven't even got around to stating what my argument actually is.

having said that, you made a very perceptive guess, and yes, dictatorship certainly has something to do with it. just ignore xorbon. ok he has a valid point, but who let him back in here anyway??

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by lebensraum
just ignore xorbon. ok he has a valid point, but who let him back in here anyway??

Someone left the door open.

[Terra Nullius]

thanks for the support platy

i actually agree with 90% of what molly is saying (*). i just don't think they are valid outside a defined scope.

(*)especially the bits about me being an incompetent fool

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
FYI: rose colored glasses with side blinders

wise man - i tried the front blinders for a while, but i kept bumping into things.

[MxM]

Originally posted by lebensraum
i feel it simply doesn't matter how you describe them. if a system makes accurate and useful predictions.

This statement is much better. The prediction part is where I wholly agree with you. It does a bit contradict your earlier statement

Originally posted by lebensraum
if i have one opinion and you have another. then my opinion is always 'right.' ie. it really is my opinion . if you are trying to tell me what my opinion is then you are simply out of your tree.

But I think that that you understood yourself that this statement is not very good. People make mistakes. Sure, I have my opinions, but it does happen that I am sometimes wrong and I understand it from the beginning of any conversation or argument. Only very narrow minded people use the principle that that they are "always right". (I do not think you are one of them )

Now as for the way to describe the event/effect, I still think that there is right and wrong ways. Again, the main criteria could be the capability to make right predictions. I will not go into such things as astrology, which is mostly crap IMO (not completely though, as it does have an entertainment value). I will give you example from physics. For some time scientist thought that there is some liquid which is responsible for the transfer of heat. The more you have that liquid in the body, the higher its temperature. And it gave correct prediction for the many processes. However, If we still used the same description of the process, then we would not be able to advance physics and engineerings to the modern level, and describe such things like chemical reactions on thermodynamic level.

Or if our only ancestors described the Earth as a piece of land on elephants, which is quite good description if you do not go and try to find the age of the Earth, then they would not discover Americas.

I can give you actually very absurd example to stress the point. Two woman discuss why some particular man does not have hair on his face. One woman says, that he is shaving each night. And another says "No! Each night a giant space rabbit with razor sharp teeth lands in his backyard and then attacks the man. The man looses his facial hair, because the rabbit bites them off". Both woman correctly describe the effect - each morning the man is shaved, but does it make them equally right? No! because if they could check they would see the truth. The fact that they can not spend the night in the man's bathroom (let's assume this is true for this example ) does not make them equally right.

The same goes for Aztec astronomy. The fact that they (and we still) can not go to the stars and check if they are stars or those mythical foxes, jaguars, does not make them right!

Through the history we (humans) had to make some assumptions, that were sufficient for description of the world around them, until we were able to find better explanations that give better predictions to more events. This does make one theories more right and others more wrong, by you own suggestion - by the ability to " make accurate and useful predictions".

Here is to our discussion of what is USSR and what is theocracy

Originally posted by lebensraum
i agree that the statement may be incorrect, but i disagree with your reasons. in the context of civ4, i believe my statement is correct. but it is pure conjecture. the game isn't out yet, so we can only guess.

my impression is that 'theocracy' a la civ4 means that you 'encourage' the people to adopt a particular religion. but i could be completely wrong. it may mean something more like what molly was trying to say, where there is some sort of priesthood. perhaps it actually affects your ability to produce things like missionaries and so on.

I think that we do not know enough of civ 4 in order to decide how better to model USSR in the game which is not yet released, and thus still modified. I think that the thing what we can discuss here is how it could be modeled, assuming small changes (of yet unknown) game. Or, may be, if Firaxis reading these posts, to help them implement those things in the best possible way. By the best way in this context I mean two things
1) The concepts should be relatively accurately correspond to the actual definitions.
2) Most of the gamers should be able to understand quite easily those concepts.

I believe, especially for #2, the description of USSR as secular or atheistic dictatorship is more accurate and much more easily accepted by the most of players.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lebensraum


my impression is that 'theocracy' a la civ4 means that you 'encourage' the people to adopt a particular religion. but i could be completely wrong.

molly seems to be assuming something like what you said - that there is a single objective truth, and there exists a single language and method appropriate to investigating that truth.

I suspect you are wrong.


I'm not the one doing the assuming: the reason you've written so many posts full of entirely unnecessary waffle and rambling is because (as you inimitably showed with your lack of knowledge of the U.S.S.R.'s history ) instead of engaging in even the smallest amount of historical research about models of government that have existed in reality, you choose to make inaccurate comparisons between them based on your own erroneous assumptions about documents ('The Communist Manifesto' of Marx and Engels) you haven't read and forms of government you clearly know nothing about.



And if you are going to reference my posts, instead of making incorrect paraphrases, just quote me. It will mean that your posts at least contain some correct information.


I can't recall calling you an

incompetent fool

but if you think the cap fits, by all means wear it.


Oh, and by way of reply, less is definitely more.

And please- don't give me a sermon on linguistics or philosophy: I studied linguistics at university, and if I want to read philosophy, I'll do what I always do, and go to the originals.

[OliverFA]

IMHO having atheism as a religion is like having anarchism as a government. Is more the absence of religion. So if you want your nation to be atheist just don't choose a religion at all.

[Terra Nullius]

you got sumthin' gainst anarchism? do ya? huh! do ya?

i take your point, but making a conscious decision to remain in anarchy, does amount to choosing a form of government. it's a good analogy though. in a similar way, you could argue that without a seat of government or any ruling parties, there is no government.

i like it. again, it's one of those realities that is dependent upon how you choose to view it (with apologies to mxm ).

Originally posted by OliverFA
Is more the absence of religion.

this could use some clarification. as a personal decision, i don't think any particular faith constitutes "religion." but if you are talking about an organised group who all choose to practice "atheism" in a consistent manner, then that is a different kettle of commies.

So if you want your nation to be atheist just don't choose a religion at all.

there appear to be two separate decisions to be made here:
first - choosing a state religion,
second - setting a religious "civic."

if you simply choose not to adopt a state religion, that does not guarantee that the populace will follow your lead, they can still be converted by other players.
it might work, but it's far too passive a strategy for my taste.

[nbarclay]

There is essentially a continuum of possibilities for religious freedom, with theocracy at one end of the spectrum and complete religious freedom on the other. Looking at some of the points on the spectrum, and at their atheistic inverses, we find:

1. Theocracy - government where the ultimate authority is in the hands of religious leaders. The atheistic inverse would be a government with power directly in the hands of the leaders of some particular atheistic system of beliefs and values. Since the Soviet government was directly in the hands of the leaders of a particular type of atheistic system of beliefs, the Soviet Union can reasonably be regarded as the atheistic inverse of a theocratic society. Government did not just work with the leaders of the communistic system of beliefs and values, but was run directly by those leaders.

2. Government-enforced religion - The political leadership is separate and largely independent from the religious leadership, but government punishes people who do not belong to the "right" religion and especially those who actively oppose it. The atheistic inverse would be a society where government punishes people who profess or promote a belief in God, and possibly also those who profess or promote alternative atheistic systems of beliefs and values that compete with the system supported by government. (Note that I'm using "God" in a generic sense for simplicity rather than trying to find a wording that encompasses all possible theistic religious beliefs.)

3. State-sponsored religion - Government does not attempt to force people to adhere to a state religion, but does provide special financial or other advantages to a state religion. The atheistic inverse is to have government provide greater support to systems of beliefs and values that either reject God or treat God as irrelevant than it does to systems of beliefs and values that view God as important. (America's public schools are often accused of behaving in such a fashion because they restrict the freedom to present religious concepts far more than they restrict the freedom to present competing concepts that treat religion as irrelevant.)

4. Complete religious freedom - Government treats religious issues and conflicts as none of its business and tries to neither promote nor hinder religion. Note that complete religious freedom is its own atheistic inverse, since government's role in an atheistic society with complete religous freedom would be essentiallly identical to its role in a theistic society with complete religious freedom. (Edit: Note that by "religious conflicts," I mean conflicts of ideas. If conflicts go beyond ideas and become a threat to public order and safety, government has reasons to intervene that have nothing to do with trying to give one system of beliefs an advantage over another.)