Religion V: Utopianism, Fundamentalism, Apothesis

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Hume wasn't out to destroy causation, just to argue that it couldn't be justified rationally or arrived at a priori. Knowledge is a product of experience, period, and we ought to be aware of this hard limit on the types of claims we can make about reality. This is an attack on metaphysics which takes things as given truth- like cause- and permits itself to make sweeping knowledge claims from them. See: the cosmological argument.

[Wise Fool]

I claim there is no limit to what type of claims anyone can make about anything.

See: politics, and also everything else.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I claim there is no limit to what type of claims anyone can make about anything.

See: politics, and also everything else.

Well, obviously the argument isn't that people are somehow physically prevented from stringing words together however they please to make claims. It's that their claims won't be justified, or 'True.'

[Wise Fool]

Well, obviously the argument isn't that people are somehow physically prevented from stringing words together however they please to make claims. It's that their claims won't be justified, or 'True.'

But whose truth? That is, which modality of thinking are we using to determine whether something is justified and true and which are not? And why should one use that modality over others - what makes it justified or true?

That is to say, when someone paraphrases Sagan and says I need extraordinary evidence to believe in God, why should I?

[Sci-2]

I think it's more that if we are to universally accept some aspect of reality there should be strong evidence. Of course the issue is to have an objective morality requires some prior assumptions, but most of us agree on certain fundamentals for the sake of not wanting to be at the wrong end of any Golden-Rule rejection.

As for extraordinary evidence, yeah it's a bit weird because what makes a claim "extraordinary" is at least in some part subjective. (For example I find the ideas that there are definitive physical laws and consciousness arises from matter to be rather miraculous claims for which I've not seen sufficient evidence.)

Yet I think where Sagan would apply the need for extraordinary evidence makes at least some pragmatic sense. Most of us would be wary of letting supposed "precogs" point out who gets preemptively arrested for a crime, or of letting psychic healers be covered under Obamacare. Same thing with legislating scriptural verses into law.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

But whose truth? That is, which modality of thinking are we using to determine whether something is justified and true and which are not? And why should one use that modality over others - what makes it justified or true?

Generally we interrogate arguments against their internal logic and the soundness of their premises, and if we find them lacking in either area we don't consider them true.

[Sci-2]

Generally we interrogate arguments against their internal logic and the soundness of their premises, and if we find them lacking in either area we don't consider them true.

Honestly I think logic only works as an instrument in a limited sense, since at the base level certain intuitions about what counts as a reasonable claim comes into play. Which is not to say logic doesn't have a place, as at times people are persuaded to one side or another, but after a point I don't know how strong a case anyone can make for their views being the most logical.

In the context of this thread, I don't know if theism (at the basic level) or atheism can claim to be more logical.

Complex Societies Evolved without Belief in All-Powerful Deity

"Analysis of the religious systems in the small island states of Austronesia challenge the theory that a belief in a supreme deity that guides our morality has been instrumental in the development of social and political complexity of all human societies."

Joseph Watts, a specialist in cultural evolution at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, who worked on the study, wanted evidence to examine the idea that “big Gods” drive and sustain the evolution of big societies. Psychologist Ara Norenzayan at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, has suggested that belief in moralizing high gods (MHGs) enabled societies to outgrow their limited ability to police moral conduct, by threatening freeloaders with retribution even if no-one else noticed their transgressions.

I thought we knew this from India as karma affected deities as well as mortals, Plato's formulation of the Euthyphro problem which separates the Good from the deities....not to mention Yaweh was criticized by the Gnostics as a petty jailer, Job possibly is sarcastic when he thanks Yaweh for his new family, and there was the whole thing where Yaweh calls for the eradication of the Caaninites.

So it's not clear where the argument of an all-powerful deity being required for morality comes from? It's arguable even the early Hebrews still thought there were other gods, Yaweh just was the god of their tribe.

[Castel]

Complex Societies Evolved without Belief in All-Powerful Deity

"Analysis of the religious systems in the small island states of Austronesia challenge the theory that a belief in a supreme deity that guides our morality has been instrumental in the development of social and political complexity of all human societies."

I thought we knew this from India as karma affected deities as well as mortals, Plato's formulation of the Euthyphro problem which separates the Good from the deities....not to mention Yaweh was criticized by the Gnostics as a petty jailer, Job possibly is sarcastic when he thanks Yaweh for his new family, and there was the whole thing where Yaweh calls for the eradication of the Caaninites.

So it's not clear where the argument of an all-powerful deity being required for morality comes from? It's arguable even the early Hebrews still thought there were other gods, Yaweh just was the god of their tribe.

But: Was the Hebrew god capable of punishing people and was it concerned with morality? Because it seems that the claim is being stretched now. MHGs seem different from ultimate solitary gods or we have a bunch of problems. They seem like gods that aren't, as Haidt put the pre-MHG gods, cruel and capricious for its own sake. Well...they're still probably cruel but to the right people.

Either way, I'm not sure that stuff like Socrates' dilemma is any challenge to the idea?

[Gears of the Beast]

In the context of this thread, I don't know if theism (at the basic level) or atheism can claim to be more logical.

Yeah, which is more logical, asserting that x is true or rejecting x because the burden of proof has not been met..? :dunno: Guess we'll never know whether believing in Bigfoot is any more logical than not believing in Bigfoot either. Just one of life's many mysteries.

[Castel]

Yeah, which is more logical, asserting that x is true or rejecting x because the burden of proof has not been met..? :dunno: Guess we'll never know whether believing in Bigfoot is any more logical than not believing in Bigfoot either. Just one of life's many mysteries.

I assume that the argument is that there are a ton of hidden premises behind the supposedly simple argument from experience. What exactly counts as the burden of proof, what can be rejected easily, what we'd lose, etc.

We seem to be using logic in a slightly confusing (for me) way here. OAR seems to mean something different from the colloquial usage by you here.

[Wise Fool]

Generally we interrogate arguments against their internal logic and the soundness of their premises, and if we find them lacking in either area we don't consider them true.

I would revise this statement thusly:

"Generally we try to interrogate what may or may not be arguments against what we perceive is their internal logic as we understand it and whether or not we agree with their assumed premises, and if we don't want to believe something is true or false we generally don't."

Because these hallowed concepts aren't hard stones amidst a sea of otherwise mostly we and muddy wasteland of truth; even they are muddy. The bedrock of how one approaches any or all of this is a complex accumulation of ultimately subjective factors, i.e. a worldview, which is usually itself a mix of other worldviews and changes on, potentially, a moment to moment basis.

The question applying to anyone accepting something as true or not is, does this agree with what I think, know, or feel? Furthermore, do I find agreeable the person or persons posing this claim? And also how irritable are my bowels today?

One might assume that philosophers and those well-educated in philosophy have a firmer grasp on what is True, but then they seem to disagree (violently, sometimes!) with each other so much, and so how am I to evaluate what they evaluate as true... and would I go through such trouble, given that I'm likely just an average joe who makes the national average or less, and has further responsibilities to family and health and friends and the like? I think not.

And so what I or anyone considers true is not, or at least not always, based in any objective or rational sense. Even whether or not there exists an objective universe where things could hypothetically be true (that we don't or never will know) or whether, divorced of human experience and knowledge, truth is meaningless. Evil genies, and all that.

What I mean is paradigm is constructed of narrative, not mathematics.

[Biglose]

The new 'pope' is a great example of how stupid a lot of these liberals (and before all the liberals start whining, I'm left wing too) are. He's the leader of a criminal organisation with completely bigoted positions and claims to be the vicar of christ. Yet all he needs to do apparently is regurgitate some lazy platitudes and wash some poor people's feet and suddenly he's fan-fucking-tastic. I'm not even sure he's actually substantively reformed any actual catholic positions at all - just said some nice things to the media as far as I can see.

No, acutally this pope is so well liked, because he did what he preached!

Thats it, it is that simple.

He did not preach "enviromentalism" just to hop in a private jet.

Which isn't really surprising, they all love the Tanakh wherein god explicitly sanctions slavery. That isn't to say the NT isn't bad either because no doubt at least one Christian will come in saying "but what about the NEW testament", it tells slaves to obey their masters throughout the NT which is a completely immoral thing to tell a slave.

How I love that...Please read the context. The context beeing: Do not piss off the romans! Do you know what Marcus licinius crassus did to Spartacus? Or just ask what the jews got for pissing of the romans, pretty much for all of history to come. Paulus grew up in the roman empire as a greek jew and he had the roman right of citizenship, so yeah he knew what he talked about. Fuck with the romans, they fuck you up!

[Jo498]

You got it wrong: Everbody knows pagan antiquity was a paradise for everyone until the sexually repressed Christians came around and messed everything up. Like they squandered the science and technology of the Graeco-Roman culture as well.

There is an interesting article here, about the more general historical blindness of lots of latter day secular humanism:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Honestly I think logic only works as an instrument in a limited sense, since at the base level certain intuitions about what counts as a reasonable claim comes into play. Which is not to say logic doesn't have a place, as at times people are persuaded to one side or another, but after a point I don't know how strong a case anyone can make for their views being the most logical.

In the context of this thread, I don't know if theism (at the basic level) or atheism can claim to be more logical.

I think we're mostly in agreement here, because I do mean logic in a limited sense as I've just used it. What I mean by logical here is whether an argument's conclusion clearly follows from its premises. In this sense, an argument could be logical in structure yet also clearly false due to faulty premises:

"All guiding eye dogs are labs. All labs are yellow. Therefore all guiding eye dogs are yellow" is clearly logically sound (if the premises are true we must accept the conclusion) but founded on bad premises, which can be disproved by the production of a golden retriever guiding eye dog or a black lab.

otoh: "All Presidents are Commander in Chief. Barack Obama is President. Therefore Barack Obama is a Lizard Person" seems to have perfectly accurate premises, but is clearly illogical; the conclusion does not follow, it's a total non-sequitur.

I would revise this statement thusly:

"Generally we try to interrogate what may or may not be arguments against what we perceive is their internal logic as we understand it and whether or not we agree with their assumed premises, and if we don't want to believe something is true or false we generally don't."

Because these hallowed concepts aren't hard stones amidst a sea of otherwise mostly we and muddy wasteland of truth; even they are muddy. The bedrock of how one approaches any or all of this is a complex accumulation of ultimately subjective factors, i.e. a worldview, which is usually itself a mix of other worldviews and changes on, potentially, a moment to moment basis.

The question applying to anyone accepting something as true or not is, does this agree with what I think, know, or feel? Furthermore, do I find agreeable the person or persons posing this claim? And also how irritable are my bowels today?

One might assume that philosophers and those well-educated in philosophy have a firmer grasp on what is True, but then they seem to disagree (violently, sometimes!) with each other so much, and so how am I to evaluate what they evaluate as true... and would I go through such trouble, given that I'm likely just an average joe who makes the national average or less, and has further responsibilities to family and health and friends and the like? I think not.

And so what I or anyone considers true is not, or at least not always, based in any objective or rational sense. Even whether or not there exists an objective universe where things could hypothetically be true (that we don't or never will know) or whether, divorced of human experience and knowledge, truth is meaningless. Evil genies, and all that.

What I mean is paradigm is constructed of narrative, not mathematics.

You say truth is meaningless, but you aren't really disagreeing with the way I've said truth claims are evaluated. You're taking an extreme skeptical position that there can be no adequate foundation for truth, we can't even know if there's a universe. You're denying that there are any sound premises to build truth on, you judge no statements justified or 'true.' So when I say Hume argues that cause is not something that is rationally/a priori/metaphysically certain and thus can't be used to reason to 'truth,' I'm somewhat at a loss to understand what your initial objection was, given the way you've expanded on it. If you think truth is meaningless, surely you can't have a major gripe with Hume saying cause cannot be rationally demonstrated to be true.

[Biglose]

You got it wrong: Everbody knows pagan antiquity was a paradise for everyone until the sexually repressed Christians came around and messed everything up. Like they squandered the science and technology of the Graeco-Roman culture as well.

And that is a very scary sentiment in my book. Because, well ancient history was not that great. And people who tried to revive it, were neither.

[Wise Fool]

I think we're mostly in agreement here, because I do mean logic in a limited sense as I've just used it. What I mean by logical here is whether an argument's conclusion clearly follows from its premises. In this sense, an argument could be logical in structure yet also clearly false due to faulty premises:

"All guiding eye dogs are labs. All labs are yellow. Therefore all guiding eye dogs are yellow" is clearly logically sound (if the premises are true we must accept the conclusion) but founded on bad premises, which can be disproved by the production of a golden retriever guiding eye dog or a black lab.

otoh: "All Presidents are Commander in Chief. Barack Obama is President. Therefore Barack Obama is a Lizard Person" seems to have perfectly accurate premises, but is clearly illogical; the conclusion does not follow, it's a total non-sequitur.

You say truth is meaningless, but you aren't really disagreeing with the way I've said truth claims are evaluated. You're taking an extreme skeptical position that there can be no adequate foundation for truth, we can't even know if there's a universe. You're denying that there are any sound premises to build truth on, you judge no statements justified or 'true.' So when I say Hume argues that cause is not something that is rationally/a priori/metaphysically certain and thus can't be used to reason to 'truth,' I'm somewhat at a loss to understand what your initial objection was, given the way you've expanded on it. If you think truth is meaningless, surely you can't have a major gripe with Hume saying cause cannot be rationally demonstrated to be true.

Well fuck, I don't know. I was drunk and also I have the attention span of a gnat.

[Sci-2]

My point about limitations of logic is reference to a larger problem of philosophy and whether all the arguments ultimately come down to intuition.

And that is a very scary sentiment in my book. Because, well ancient history was not that great. And people who tried to revive it, were neither.

Is anyone trying to revive ancient history in the present though?

[Biglose]

Is anyone trying to revive ancient history in the present though?

Look, the world is a big place, you should know there always are.

To be more concrete: Yeah, their are some groups which combine esoterics, paganism with national socialist ideology.

Look, the issue with "everything was great before christianity" is dangerous, to put it mildly. It automatically makes the assumption that there is a "better" or "pure" point in Europes history, where it was not spoiled by outside influance.

You can go full racial at it, you can go enviromental at it or even take a feminist perspektiv (and god only knows what else). The general story is: There were the "ancient tribes" which where pure and good. Lived one with nature, where racial superior, more honorful or lived in a matriarchy etc.. Then came along the poisenos influance of christianity and destroyed this purity. (And and it is based on? What is the root of this "evil?)

I am not saying that they are majority or take over power. But every branch of it exist and there are all kind of mixtures of it in europe. It is just socially more acceptable to sing "Protect all the trees" "Instead, there will never be a ..." In switzerland for example there was a big push on far stricter immigration policy, using the argument of environmental concerns. (I do not want to say, that everybody going in any of those direction is a nazi or something (some might really just be worried about overpopulation, and granted that might be an issue in central europe). I am saying, one should listen carefully to the means and goals of the people one thinks about to support.)

Well, and if you consider 1400 years ago ancient, well you got yourself ISIS.

[Jo498]

My point about limitations of logic is reference to a larger problem of philosophy and whether all the arguments ultimately come down to intuition.

Is anyone trying to revive ancient history in the present though?

I was being facetious, of course. But Epicureanism definitely has fanboys among New Atheists and there is nothing wrong with that. And the popular but wrong ideas about ancient Greece and Rome being tolerant hedonistic societies far preferable to the dour christianity that followed are widespread. And similarly, there is also some glorification of some (usually made up) mythical past of druidism or the mother goddess or whatever that was exstirpated by baptism, fire and sword during the christianization of Europe.

With respect to Gray's essay, on some level I think it is perfectly possible to defend substantive ethics and morals without any religious (or deist/theist philosophical) foundation. But it is impossible to derive ethics from natural science and Gray is right to point out that things we almost universally condemn today (like the racism and eugenics of the early 20th century) were supposed to be based in the science of the day. I find it a cheap move by christian apologists to point to the atrocities of the modern "scientific" and atheist fascist and socialist regimes as "what happens when one abandons religion". But it is also naive to believe that everybody will keep staying nice to each other when there is no common morality left.

Among the most loaded issues here are today probably everything related to euthanasia, designer babies, abortion of disabled fetuses etc. I do not remember where I got the link but I recently encountered a very moving text about the interaction of the late disabled activist McBryde Johnson with Peter Singer ("He simply thinks it would have been better, all things considered, to have given my parents the option of killing the baby I once was...")

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/unspeakable-conversations.html

And the fact remains that most contemporary liberal humanist values were historically derived from religion and later secularized. Most people seem to need emotionally some religious or tradition-based framing of ethics; not many people will study Kant and use his methods for their ethical conduct. And of course there are many games in town. Singerian utilitarianism seems chillingly cavalier about euthanasia and if he is serious in the "Republic" Plato was clearly in favor of it (as well as of selective breeding of humans). And don't even get me started on nerdy "transhumanist" utopias (that rather seem like utterly anti-humanist nightmares to me).

[Gears of the Beast]

How I love that...Please read the context. The context beeing: Do not piss off the romans! Do you know what Marcus licinius crassus did to Spartacus? Or just ask what the jews got for pissing of the romans, pretty much for all of history to come. Paulus grew up in the roman empire as a greek jew and he had the roman right of citizenship, so yeah he knew what he talked about. Fuck with the romans, they fuck you up!

Really? Ok let's look at the context. BTW it would still be immoral even if he weren't referring to slaves and masters generally.

6 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise— 3 “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”[a]

4 Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.