blatham wrote:george
You done missed precisely the differentiation which I detailed. Secularism isn't a belief. Sceptism isn't a belief. Indifference isn't a belief. They are the absence of such.
Sophistry. If I turn my attention from the scantily clad virgins to contemplate the the world view of the island's natives, and doubt their beliefs, that is hold to a different belief (i.e. that they are likely wrong), then I am indeed in the grip of a belief.
If,on the other hand I am indifferent to the question and turn my attention to the virgins with the intent of altering their status, then I am certainly (for the moment) no threat to the native's beliefs.
You are playing with words. This notion of "absence of belief" does not stand up to even elementary philosophical scrutiny.
Fact is, much of what passes as "secularism" -- is indeed "belief."
But I think you folks are talking past each other in some areas.
Blatham's assertion: "I have no certainty at all on the origin of the universe, or if it even had an origin, or if limited us might ever come close to fathoming that. My scepticism of or indifference to any culture's origin stories is of a categorically different nature than any one of those 'held to be true' positions"...
...certainly is correct.
But so what.
Most secularists don't adhere to anything close to that reasonable a position.
I was in a discussion recently with a guy over in Abuzz who argued that he was, if effect, presenting a demonstrably more logical position (than a theistic position) by asserting that his assessment of the evidence (which he said was absolutely nil!) was that the chance of there being a god was "a googalplex to one against -- which is to say, the number 10 multiplied by itself 10 to the 100 power to one against!
That is not an unusual secularistic proposition -- and is not even remotely related to the reasonable position Blatham offered in the quote up above.
Said another way: Some here are arguing that secularism is not a "belief system." Well...although secularism SOMETIMES is not a "belief system" -- all too often it is.
Wow, good discussion. Lola, I totally understand your concept.
Religion has it's place in society, if for nothing else, to make us think.
As we age, we also change. What we held as truth written in stone, presents itself in a completely different light through experience and comparative thought. We are individuals, first.
I believe in a Spirit holding no prejudice or judgement. We're here, I believe, to attain our highest purpose. Our belief system, helps each person achieve those goals.
Thanks you guys for an interesting discussion.
George, you're picking at nits (figuratively, of course, i don't suggest that you are literally lousy).
In responding to me, you seem to have ignored the following statement which i wrote: "All of which being said, just about anybody intent on changing society's laws for any reason is a prime cadidate for close scrutiny."
As for norms of logical testing, or of demonstrating an aspect of reality, i would point out that this is already done. Think in terms of the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accounting Office, the National Security Agency, Central Intelligence, etc. These organizations purport, at least, to provide expert evidence upon which to base magesterial or legislative decisions. For however much one may be sceptical of such data as is presented by them, and how it is "spun" for public consumption, there is a world of difference between presenting a statistical analysis, or a summary of signals intelligence, and stating that we must do this or that because god came to me in a dream and said so.
Setanta,
I did see the statement you repeated, and I agree with it.
My 'nit picking' arises from an earlier and prolongued discussion with Blatham concerning the competition among secular and religious forces purporting to advocate ethical standards for human behavior. Blatham and Lola would prohibit virtually any religiously motivated person or group from such advocacy in the public domain, while welcoming secular minded individuals and groups doing the same thing, even on the same issues. Both stop short of affirming the absolute right of peopleto be free of interference of any kind by the government concerning their beliefs, whether it is motivated by evangelical Protestants or NOW or PETA or any other group.
George, I agree. Without the views of a constituency viewed publically,
very little would be accomplished. We are in fact searching for balance.
happy seasonal greetings, strad! Sorry I've been so out of touch...busy guy for a bit longer.
george
There may not be nits about your scalp, but they nestle snuggly amongst your wits.
It is logically improper, and transparently so, to claim as you do (or come close to doing) that scepticism (uncertainty, absence of a truth claim) and belief (certainty, presence of a truth claim) are identical.
If this were so, it becomes a tad difficult to ascertain how it is we might learn anything, or make intellectual progress in any direction at all.
As set suggests, there is a real functional difference in play here which you conveniently ignore (for an obvious reason, which I'll get to in a second). The earth, we now know, is not at the center of the solar system nor the universe. That knowledge was only possible as a consequence of scepticsm, uncertainty, and the recognition that truth claims impede us if held as anything other than tentative.
Now, why did that specific intellectual battle take so long to be won?
I said earlier that 'creationism' is a rearguard action. It has risen as a response to a more compelling, but contradictory, understanding of the world which secular investigation has permitted. Faith holders (of a certain variety - those who ain't gonna let that faith slip away no matter what) have had but two possible defensive strategies: to compete on the empirical/scientific battlefield, thus creationism; or to do what you are doing, to argue that all truth claims are equally theory-laden and resting upon bias such that none are superior to any other.
That's where your constant dualism and refusal to differentiate stems from george.
You can be counted on to argue that one person accepting biblical authority is no different that another person accepting the authority of, say, Louis Leakey. But there is a difference. One is held tentatively, and can be discarded. Not so the other.
As regards the question of moral or ethical compass, a similar situation is in play. Let's take homosexuality. Various church groups, like the Anglican church, are presently in no small turmoil over this issue. For the Anglican church, the strongest voices speaking out against ordination of gay priests or consecration of gay unions/marriage are coming from the African bishops. They hold an idea, a value, which is not tentative. It is fixed. Homosexuality is bad/unnatural/perverse. Clearly, the cultural inheritance out of Africa is in play here, and the term 'bias' is applicable.
Local Anglican Bishop Michael Ingham finds himself in political opposition to these African bishops (and others in the West, of course). He is consecrating gay unions. He is NOT claiming gay unions are good or better. His position is a secular position (go back and read the definitions for 'secular' that I posted) - it is the position that moral claims, like ontological claims, ought to be tentative.
You see this political opposition, george, as necessarily equal or identical on either side. But it isn't. One is proscriptive (thou must not) and the other is a position which holds that such proscription is an afront to personal moral choice and liberty. The first says "I am certain this is wrong" and the second says "I am not certain it is wrong".
This is not sophistry, george. This is the fight for liberty.
ps...the theistic-minded individuals whom I listed earlier (Tutu, Muggerige, Joseph Campbell) and whom I included as individuals that I would have no problem with were they to also hold high political position, were included because I would not expect any of them to assume their own certainties ought to become rules for proscribing the behavior and values of others. They would talk (to communicate their ideas) and they would live their lives as exemplars, but each of them would refuse to enforce or to proscribe.
Blatham wrote:
.. It is logically improper, and transparently so, to claim as you do (or come close to doing) that scepticism (uncertainty, absence of a truth claim) and belief (certainty, presence of a truth claim) are identical.
If this were so, it becomes a tad difficult to ascertain how it is we might learn anything, or make intellectual progress in any direction at all.
Illogical. First you beg the question, then you follow with a non-sequitor. What is the skepticism you prize so well? In the universe of propositions concerning some matter, the proposition that A is true, or that B is true, and the proposition that "not A" is true, are all equally propositions, as is the proposition that "one cannot tell with the evidence at hand".
Blatham wrote:
As set suggests, there is a real functional difference in play here which you conveniently ignore (for an obvious reason, which I'll get to in a second). The earth, we now know, is not at the center of the solar system nor the universe. That knowledge was only possible as a consequence of scepticsm, uncertainty, and the recognition that truth claims impede us if held as anything other than tentative.
On the contrary, I regard all such "truth claims" as tentative. I do however make a distinction between what I know and what I believe. All of us act on the presumption that certain things are true, even though in many cases we don't assert we "know" they are true (or make a truth claim about them). I am flying out of Dulles for San Francisco on Monday. I will leave for the airport at 1100 AM on the belief that my flight will depart, but I don't know that it will.
Blatham wrote:
I said earlier that 'creationism' is a rearguard action. It has risen as a response to a more compelling, but contradictory, understanding of the world which secular investigation has permitted. Faith holders (of a certain variety - those who ain't gonna let that faith slip away no matter what) have had but two possible defensive strategies: to compete on the empirical/scientific battlefield, thus creationism; or to do what you are doing, to argue that all truth claims are equally theory-laden and resting upon bias such that none are superior to any other.
That's where your constant dualism and refusal to differentiate stems from george.
Blatham wrote:
You can be counted on to argue that one person accepting biblical authority is no different that another person accepting the authority of, say, Louis Leakey. But there is a difference. One is held tentatively, and can be discarded. Not so the other.
Sophistry and nonsense. There is nothing intrinsic to these "authorities" that either requires anyone to hold either without modification or even renunciation. There are sufficient examples in respect to both to amply prove that point.
The liberty of some Anglican groups to accept homosexual prelates is no different from the liberty of other such groups to reject it. Based on what I have read, both sides appear to be equally dogmatic in this dispute. I have no quarrel with either, and would continue to let both groups live and vote as they wish.
This is a very interesting discussion and I'm sorry I've been so busy that I can't participate as much as I would like.
Yesterday, I was shopping and found a small book, written by an accomplished scientist in his later years. Here's a quotation from that book.
Quote:What hopes and fears does the scientific method imply for mankind? I do not think that this is the right way to put the question. Whatever this tool in the hand of man will produce depends entirely on the nature of the goals alive in this mankind. Once these goals exist, the scientific method furnishes means to realize them. Yet it cannot furnish the very goals. The scientific method itself would not have led anywhere, it would not even have been born without a passionate striving for clear understanding.
Perfections of means and confusion of goals seem--in my opinion--to characterize our age. If we desire sincerely and passionately the safety, the welfare and the free development of the talents of all men, we shall not be in want of the means to approach such a state. Even if only a small part of mankind strives for such goals, their superiority will prove itself in the long run.
Albert Einstein,
Out Of My Later Years p.113
So is science a religion? Or is it a method that can be used to measure the usefulness of certain ideas?
Nice point Lola, but irrelevant to the the discussion. Do you hold to the Platonic view that only such enlightened scholars should have political rights? Would you deprive others of the right to political expression? (This of course leads to dilemma: how does one identify jus who is a right-thinking 'scientist'. Many more claim this than qualify, and many claimants do not accept the qualifications of others.)
An example to counter George's assertion that the fundy groups are benevolent and harmless:
Its Against the Bible!
Quote:A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in July found that 54 percent of respondents said homosexual relations should be legal. Only 41 percent of the respondents in the latest poll said they should be legal.
Quote:Richard Waters, 71, a retired elementary school teacher in Little Valley, N.Y., and a Republican, said in a follow-up interview to the poll that he strongly supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.I think any kind of amendment that says `You shall not' will help," Mr. Waters said. I just don't think it's right for two men to go parading around in public or for two women to be doing the things they do. It's against God's law.That's right in the Bible that it's wrong."
Theresa Eaton, 49, a financial analyst in Corona, Calif., and also a Republican, agreed.
"I still believe that marriage should be between a man and woman," she said. "If I knew that we had a neighbor who was gay, I would not let my nieces and nephews go close by there. I don't want to accept their lifestyle. It can be acquired and it is not right."
Quote:Jan LaRue, counsel to Concerned Women for America, a conservative religious policy organization, said her group was involved in a public education campaign on "why marriage is important and needs to be protected." She added, "We are part of a broad coalition that is using bumper stickers, newspaper ads, articles on our Web sites and assisting with amicus briefs."
Quote:"I want my children to grow up and be normal people like me and my father and my grandfather was," said Ziad Nimri, 41, a salesman and a Democrat who lives in Spokane, Wash. "I don't want my children to start getting ideas. They see it's out in the open and you see men kissing men on television these days."
Mr. Nimri said he was also worried that if gays were allowed to marry, they would get other rights too, like tax benefits. "Because they're a minority, they're going to start actually giving them more privileges than normal people would have," he said. "Minorities always tend to get more than your average person does."
Legislating bigotry does not make it right. Similarly, legislation based on one group's interperetation of a poor translation of a religious text is also antithetical to the concept of democracy.
More cut & paste irrelevant trash from Hobit.
I made no assertions one way or the other about any groups, "fundy"or otherwise.
Few "group" identifications (apart from political party) are provided in these random quotes. What the views expressed have to do with "benevolent and harmless", or the converse is left unexplained.
Thinking is difficult. It requires energy. However it generally helps one avoid such foolishness.
george wrote:
Quote:Blatham and Lola would prohibit virtually any religiously motivated person or group from such advocacy in the public domain, while welcoming secular minded individuals and groups doing the same thing, even on the same issues.
And then he asked me this question:
Quote:Would you deprive others of the right to political expression?
George,
Let me answer your question first and object to your above statement (as if it were fact) second.
In answer to your question, the answer is NO, NEVER. Please print out this answer and tape it to your wall above your computer so that the next time you want to ask me this same question that I've answered over and over again, it will be answered. Please do not attribute this idea to me again unless otherwise emended by me.
My point is not, nor has it ever been, that anyone, including religious fanatics, should be denied political expression or the right to organize or to try to influence law. My point is, like Blatham, that they bear watching and when observed to be endangering what I and many others consider to be our civil rights, to be exposed for this intent so that,
through the electoral process, they can be prevented from their evil doing.
I identify this group as "fundamentalist Christians" because they identify themselves in this way. If they were fundamentalist Muslims or Jews or tiny little Lilliputians, I would be sounding the same cautionary note. They are not a small group that should be ignored. They are a big enough minority, well organized since the early 1980s and represent a threat to the freedom of the citizens of this country, regardless of your patronizing pooh poohing. (but I love you anyway)
georgeob1 wrote:More cut & paste irrelevant trash from Hobit.
Translation: This contradicts my opinion that such groups are harmless, so I won't read it, and since I'm a morally superior conservative, I don't have to even bother being nice.
Quote:I made no assertions one way or the other about any groups, "fundy"or otherwise.
Does somone else type your responses? You have consistently stated you don't think these groups are harmful to the democratic process.
Quote:Few "group" identifications (apart from political party) are provided in these random quotes. What the views expressed have to do with "benevolent and harmless", or the converse is left unexplained.
And the award for most completely obfuscatory answer goes to....
Quote:Thinking is difficult. It requires energy. However it generally helps one avoid such foolishness.
An interesting statement , especially following your comments above.
Hi ya Blath ~ have a great holiday season.
Lola, great quote! Probably why it took so damed long freeing slaves.
Hotibob, wheather we appreciate the beliefs of others or not, everyone has the right voicing their opinions.
George, it's been my experience that people know what they know, but vote what they believe - no matter where their beliefs derive from. All the more reason why each issue should be srutinized. I concur.
The results of
this Gallup poll reflect the grim forecast of eroding civil liberties in the age of the endless war on terrorism.
About three-fourths of Americans surveyed thought it was fine to turn a state courthouse into a religious shrine:
Quote:Poll respondents were asked about the recent controversy surrounding the display of the Ten Commandments at the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery. Three-quarters of Americans (77%) believe that the Constitution's provision for freedom of religion defends this kind of display; only 21% believe the display should be removed because of the constitutional separation of church and state.
Three cheers for theocracy. May the best God win.
Ya know, it sure would be interesting seeing stats from a true majority and not just a percentage of 1,000 people.
The same question asked in any other large metroplitan city would reveal less people would entertain the idea of seeing the ten commandments displayed in federal, state, or local buildings. The bible belt does not represent all of America.
But through the PR and political machinations of a few groups, it is beginning to do so.