EU is becoming anti-christian in politics

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
To me, Ned, the "Dark Side" is the side of the Dark Ages - the people who yearn for a return to a mythical golden age of years gone by. In other words, the religionistas (which, to me, means religious people who seek to force their way of life on others via legislation and/or people who make foreign policy decisions based on religion).

Look, sometimes I do get a little carried away in terms of my anti-organized religion tendencies. Some of that is due to discussions here at 'poly. Some of it is the current uber-religious administration in power in this country. Some of it is just plain 'ole intellectual snobbery.

I really do wish religion would go the way of the Dodo. But I'm smart enough to know that's not gonna happen in the foreseable future.

So I'll settle for a reduction in militant religion in politics.

-Arrian

I admit that religion has some problems in that it has forced some bizarre notions of civilization on us by autocrats who justify their weird positions by invoking God. But at the same time, the Catholic Church (and I mean by that, the Church from the days of Christ) has operated to give us a value system that has advanced civilization. Among these values is a sense of equality of all humans because we are born equal in the eyes of God. The Church has always opposed slavery and has supported even from its earliest days what we now call "human rights." Where it has gone wrong is where it justified or participated in oppression of dissenting views and what happened in the middle ages where it was burning witches and torturing and killing Jews.

We should also not forget that Martin Luther was the person who first advocated universal education. And it was Christian abolitionists in England and the United States that lead the fight against slavery.

We owe much to Christianity and to the Catholic Church. Much.

[Heresson]

The question is whether the humanity would have been better off without religion - and it wouldn't have been better, it'd have been worse.
The church has made a lot effort to change some wrong behaviours, like it supported free-will marriage against marriages arranged by family. It made people care about the children, today it protects them from abortionists.
And in cultural terms... As I've already said that, can You imagine Paris without Notre Dame? Italy without Sixtine Chapel or the tower of Pisa? Moscow without Uspienski Sobor (or whatever it is called), and so on? Would the world be better off without Greek philosophy and without Christianity?
Without religion, people would've remained animals. The question is whether we still need religion, but if You assume God exists, or even spirituality exists, the question is irrelevant.

[Heresson]

(in another words, after reading his posts, my views are dangerously close to Ned's)

[Arrian]

So what you're essentially saying is that the principles many of us hold dear in the modern world came from religion, and furthermore could not have come to pass without religion?

The second part is key. It appears to be what Herresson is saying. I disagree, but of course I cannot prove it, since there is no parallel universe devoid of religion.

I, for one, believe that a person can made sound ethical choices without religion.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
So what you're essentially saying is that the principles many of us hold dear in the modern world came from religion, and furthermore could not have come to pass without religion?

I know you're paraphrasing someone else, so don't take this persnally, Arian.

This is crap. We absolutely would have had the same basica morals regardless of whether or not religion existed. Why, because those morals either reflect certain property rights or they reflect basic social needs for stabilty and security.

Does anyone honestly believe that a society in which the dominent religion said it was okay to committ murder would last very long before it wiped itself out? If monogoamy laws weren't enforced, male inheritance wouldn't work, and the large accumulations of capital needed to move humans out of barbarism wouldn't have occured. How long would a society last in which it was okay to steal?

The Aztecs' religion operated contrary to the basic needs of society. When they had a bad year, they increased their human scacrifices. For a society that depended on tribute, sacrificing your slave class to appease is a one way ticket to economic disaster. The Aztec economic continued to get worse, and in response, they contonued ioncreasing the sacrifices to appease the gods. Even had the Spanish not happened along, the Aztec empire and religion were not long for the world. They were rapidly becoming an empty shell.

Religion reflects the real world. Religions which try to operate as if the real world doesn't matter don't last. Thus, our real human needs and conditions make our morals.

[Arrian]

Am I like Theoban now? Lots of people have been dropping an "r" from my username lately.

Why would I take it personally, Che? I lean toward your view. I see their argument, but I doubt it very much. I just said I cannot prove them wrong because the only history we have is the history of a religious world.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

I just wanted you to know I was directing my comments at you, since I was quoting you.

[Arrian]

It boils down to what a guy I knew in college once said to me:

Gregg: Rob, you seem like a pretty moral person.

Rob: Thanks, Gregg. I like to think I'm a pretty good guy.

Gregg: But you're not religious.

Rob: Nope, not at all.

Gregg: Then where do the morals come from, if you don't believe in God?

Rob: You think you need God to tell you what's right & wrong? Upbringing, Gregg.

In retrospect I should have mentioned my education too, since it wasn't all my parents.

...

Morals might not really be the right word (is Ethics better? maybe), but the point is that he respected my views but couldn't figure out how I could hold them without believing in God.

The basic idea of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" simply makes sense. Sure, that line comes from religion, but I find it difficult to believe that no one else could have come up with that concept as just smart policy.

-Arrian

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


If that's your criterion, then they're right. Fetuses are clearly members of the human species.

Pointless ****ing. I did provide other facts than simple belonging to the human specy.

They certainly had scientific and rational reasons for it. In their experience, blacks were natural slaves, primitive, and sub-human. That some were purely emotional reactions is irrelevent. 99% of people on either side of an issue have purely emotional reactions.

Yeah, just like Nazi "scientists" had biology courses taught at the Sorbonne saying how intrinsically inferior the Jewish race was.

The truth is that studies from the time were severely tainted by prejudices, and did not conform to scientific standards.

Also, social studies from the time were abysmally primitive, and hardly any "anthropologist" was truly making unbiased observations. Some enlightened spirits did though, and it shows that it was achievable.

Yours, really, are equally arbitrary. Why are your standards of possessing "intrinsic characteristics and predispositions to those belonging to the human race" less arbitrary than simple skin color? For that matter, why do rights have to be based on humans - why not just white people? Why those particular intrinsic characterists? Why not the (by your reasoning) most fundamental and non-arbitrary characteristic of members of the human species - being alive and possessing human DNA? I.e., what the RCC argues.

I was going to laugh at you but I'll try to remain serious.

Take, for instance, reason. There are plenty of things that can be deduced from it being found in an individual. For instance, any modern political philosophy wouldn't make any sense if it didn't assume that it is shared amongst all humans. How then could a Social Contract exist between unreasonable persons? You would be hard-pressed to make a case defending that only white skinned persons can sign a contract and understand its clauses, because AFAIK skin has nothing to do with cognitive processes.

Just take the Leviathan and replace all instance of "human" and replace it by "white-skinned human". Chances are, many of the arguments would just fall apart.

The second part of your response: "For that matter, why do rights have to be based on humans [...]" is pretty much irrelevant. Rights at that time were based on this, and still are, and this is what counts in determining what positions were irrational or not.

Thus, and WRT to my allegedly arbitrary criteria, what you fail to understand is the difference between axioms and propositions resulting from axioms. Clearly no axiom can be absolutely true; but propositions descending from a certain set of axioms can be valid, within the very set of values defined by the axioms. The point here is that axioms used then (and now) as a basis for rights and morality had nothing to do with skin color, except when one would try to add one to the list for emotional reasons (as it has been previously demonstrated that scientific evidence wasn't there). Still, I suspect that a good ol' razor could take care of any such axiom.

IMO morality codes should not be seen as philosophical absolutes, but rather as specific axiomatic-dependant statements relying on epistemologically safe assumptions. This is why a morality code where axioms themselves are self-contradictory (such as the one presented in the Bible) should be regarded as less valid, and, ultimately, more "arbitrary" (because more likely to arise from an emotional and phenomenal context) than those where:

1) axioms are not self-contradictory
2) axioms are based on strong epistemological evidence, and are striving to find the most universally acceptable (and preferably simple) definition of what people want for themselves
3) propositions derived from the axioms are logically valid

You now know my basis for claiming what can make something more rational than something else, outside of the traditional clear-cut distinction between relativism and absolutism.

The dogmatic assumption of a connection between correlation and causation, and that the future will be like the past, etc. is another debate. The difference between this and morality is that no human being is capable of disbelieving in those assumptions, at least any more than at a very intellectual level, so it's a moot point.

I'm curious to know what makes these objections too "intellectual" to become moot... a valid objection is valid, point.

But you missed my earlier point: the government can't legislate against sin. Therefore, even if I accept your argument that legislation for the protection of others isn't valid if it is based somehow on religious grounds, I'm right in this case, because this clearly isn't based on religious grounds (or more accurately, it needn't be based on religious grounds; an atheist could make the same argument). Therefore, if you didn't allow the theists to implement it, what you're really doing is saying thaat only atheists are allowed to vote for certain types of legislation.

Not really, I was just saying that at a very factual level we ought to look at how much the Church has to do with the idea, and if the link is too close then we should be very prudent. For instance, many believers would make research to say that homosexuality is a choice to favor their agenda.

Perhaps a safe way to do it would be to see if a fair number of atheists oppose abortion; then you might have a point. But as things are right now, very few religious people are for abortion, while very few atheists are against it. I just say "be wary", and nothing else.

Your argument that it has nothing to do with separation of Church and State is way too naive and extremist when you look at the ideological map. The question here becomes: "how much religiosity is too much?", not "can it, in any way, be non religious?"

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Heresson
The question is whether the humanity would have been better off without religion - and it wouldn't have been better, it'd have been worse.

Nope, it would've been a lot better. All religion does is train people to believe things dogmatically and to reject even empirical evidence that contradicts their faith. That it has sometimes used its power to help people doesn't change the fact that it is essentially brainwashing.

The world would've been much better if it had been run by secular humanists

[Arrian]

Kuci,

From what I see, he appears to be arguing the w/o religion, there would have been no secular humanists.

I don't buy it. Just clarifying...

-Arrian

[Heresson]

I would picture the thought I have (though it's not my view, I don't have own opinions, just random thoughts)
with a rocket.
Imagine it being built from two parts, the propulsion and fuel perhaps. Anyway, the rocket was going through the air or anything until the fuel part started thinking: the propulsion part limits me. Without it, i'd be lighter and moved closer... It wouldn't suck my fuel... I must get free from it!
And so it finally did. The propulsion part's fallen away and disappeared. The fuel part rejoyced and still moved, and first it didn't notice it moves slower, and slower, and closer to the earth. Perhaps it didn't notice the danger even when its pace became quicker, and quicker, until it crushed into the ground, ending its existance.

[Arrian]

That's a random thought, alright.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Pointless ****ing. I did provide other facts than simple belonging to the human specy.

My point is that your example of a scientific fact that the RCC refuses to accept, was, in fact, a scientific fact not only accepted by the RCC, but used in support of their arguments.

Yeah, just like Nazi "scientists" had biology courses taught at the Sorbonne saying how intrinsically inferior the Jewish race was.

Exactly.

The truth is that studies from the time were severely tainted by prejudices, and did not conform to scientific standards.

Regardless of whether or not they are of inferior intelligence, why should superior intelligence actually imply "superiority"?

I was going to laugh at you but I'll try to remain serious.

Take, for instance, reason. There are plenty of things that can be deduced from it being found in an individual. For instance, any modern political philosophy wouldn't make any sense if it didn't assume that it is shared amongst all humans. How then could a Social Contract exist between unreasonable persons? You would be hard-pressed to make a case defending that only white skinned persons can sign a contract and understand its clauses, because AFAIK skin has nothing to do with cognitive processes.

1) Reason clearly is not one of the more prevalent abilities amongst humans (half-serious here)

2) What does the ability to, say, sign a contract, have to do with anything?

The second part of your response: "For that matter, why do rights have to be based on humans [...]" is pretty much irrelevant. Rights at that time were based on this, and still are, and this is what counts in determining what positions were irrational or not.

Ah, so now you're simply arguing empirical fact about what they believed, not whether or not they were actually correct.

Thus, and WRT to my allegedly arbitrary criteria, what you fail to understand is the difference between axioms and propositions resulting from axioms. Clearly no axiom can be absolutely true; but propositions descending from a certain set of axioms can be valid, within the very set of values defined by the axioms. The point here is that axioms used then (and now) as a basis for rights and morality had nothing to do with skin color, except when one would try to add one to the list for emotional reasons (as it has been previously demonstrated that scientific evidence wasn't there). Still, I suspect that a good ol' razor could take care of any such axiom.

Why should I accept your axioms? You aren't defining a system, and then saying that your conclusions are true only within this system. You are saying that these aspects actually have some intrinsic empirical quality. For instance, if you are simply defining the word "person" to mean "human that has been born", then you haven't made any case at all. You haven't established that suddenly, oh, "humans that have been born ought to have rights" (assuming that a person ought to have rights), because your "person" isn't the same thing as the "person" that is supposed to have rights. And if you simply define "ought" and "rights" and all those words so that it's true, you haven't established anything about the "ought" that means should.

IMO morality codes should not be seen as philosophical absolutes, but rather as specific axiomatic-dependant statements relying on epistemologically safe assumptions.

If they're what you say, they have NO bearing on the real world and might as well be ignored.

(The reason we don't do this with mathematics has nothing to do with math and everything to do with the fact that we've actually observed that this completely arbitrary, non-empirical system happens to be used by the universe. There can obviously be no corresponding solution for definition of right and wrong, because there's no experiment you can perform that tells you them. You can observe that people tend to follow certain moralities, but that's all it is: people tend to follow certain moralities.)

This is why a morality code where axioms themselves are self-contradictory (such as the one presented in the Bible) should be regarded as less valid, and, ultimately, more "arbitrary" (because more likely to arise from an emotional and phenomenal context) than those where:

1) axioms are not self-contradictory

Just because their statement of their moral principles are contradictory with each other or with their actions doesn't mean their actual beliefs are contradictory. It just means they don't actually follow their stated beliefs, and is not an indictment of the beliefs they actually follow.

2) axioms are based on strong epistemological evidence, and are striving to find the most universally acceptable (and preferably simple) definition of what people want for themselves

What is "epistemological" evidence?

3) propositions derived from the axioms are logically valid

See my response to #1

You now know my basis for claiming what can make something more rational than something else, outside of the traditional clear-cut distinction between relativism and absolutism.

You haven't demonstrated why yours happen to fit your criteria any more than the RCC's do.

In fact, I'd say you are JUST as guilty, by your logic. Assuming things like sentience and intelligence make a person, if you aren't against third-trimester abortions then your propositions are not validly derived from your axioms.

I'm curious to know what makes these objections too "intellectual" to become moot... a valid objection is valid, point.

Since every single human being acts as if he or she believes them, it's completely pointless to say "I don't believe in causality/objective reality/etc." In fact, it's really just an intellectual conceit. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's a complete waste of time to even think about it.

Not really, I was just saying that at a very factual level we ought to look at how much the Church has to do with the idea, and if the link is too close then we should be very prudent. For instance, many believers would make research to say that homosexuality is a choice to favor their agenda.

Homosexuality being a choice or not has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Banning it would still be legislation against sin, unlike banning abortion.

Perhaps a safe way to do it would be to see if a fair number of atheists oppose abortion; then you might have a point. But as things are right now, very few religious people are for abortion, while very few atheists are against it. I just say "be wary", and nothing else.

It doesn't matter if there are any atheists who hold the view; the point is that it is not inconsistant for an atheist to hold that view, therefore, even if I concede your point in general (which I don't), it doesn't apply to this case.

Your argument that it has nothing to do with separation of Church and State is way too naive and extremist when you look at the ideological map. The question here becomes: "how much religiosity is too much?", not "can it, in any way, be non religious?"

It has nothing to do with separation of church and state, else EVERY law would have to do with separation of church and state (I consider morality and religion as fundamentally the same, for that pupose).

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Heresson
The question is whether the humanity would have been better off without religion - and it wouldn't have been better, it'd have been worse.

Nope, it would've been a lot better. All religion does is train people to believe things dogmatically and to reject even empirical evidence that contradicts their faith. That it has sometimes used its power to help people doesn't change the fact that it is essentially brainwashing.

The world would've been much better if it had been run by secular humanists

First of all, this your talking about dogmas is right only when it comes from religions, uh, objawione, samawiyya,
You know, the ones that have prophets and holy books,
and even not quite when it comes to them.
First of all, there's always a room for speculation (well, in Islam, the gates of igtihad were closed, but still),
and when You think. that God does not exist, so-called God's orders are in fact result of personal and social thought.
Coming back to Your misconception that all religions are giving dogmas; Greek religion was different, for example.
Also, what are the sources of "secular humanism" - deep in religion.