Reply
Sat 19 May, 2012 04:13 pm
"The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability.
The ambitious, the sensual, have hardly time for reasoning, and for embracing a bad system; they have other things to do than comparing Lucretius with Socrates. That is how things go among us.
That was not how things went with the Roman senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous, who ruined the republic. Epicureanism existed under the emperors: the atheists of the senate had been rebels in the time of Sylla and Cæsar: under Augustus and Tiberius they were atheist slaves.
I would not wish to have to deal with an atheist prince, who would find it to his interest to have me ground to powder in a mortar: I should be quite sure of being ground to powder. If I were a sovereign, I would not wish to have to deal with atheist courtiers, whose interest it would be to poison me: I should have to be taking antidotes every day. It is therefore absolutely necessary for princes and for peoples, that the idea of a Supreme Being, creator, ruler, rewarder, revenger, shall be deeply engraved in people's minds. " - Voltaire
Now that last paragraph is nothing other than a rock-solid, logically-compelling argument. There are two premises nobody might honestly dispute followed by a conclusion which logically follows them.
Why then does this argument receive virtually no attention?
@CTD,
Quote:Voltaire wrote:I would not wish to have to deal with an atheist prince, who would find it to his interest to have me ground to powder in a mortar: I should be quite sure of being ground to powder. If I were a sovereign, I would not wish to have to deal with atheist courtiers, whose interest it would be to poison me: I should have to be taking antidotes every day. It is therefore absolutely necessary for princes and for peoples, that the idea of a Supreme Being, creator, ruler, rewarder, revenger, shall be deeply engraved in people's minds.
Now that last paragraph is nothing other than a rock-solid, logically-compelling argument. There are two premises nobody might honestly dispute followed by a conclusion which logically follows them.
Not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit. Neither of those premises is substatiated, they're just
ipse dixit. He does not explain why an atheist monarch would find it in his interest to have him ground to dust in a mortar (a dubious proposition on the face of it, given the water content of a human body). Nor does he explain why it would be in the interest of courtiers to poison an atheist monarch. You have just swallowed his unsubstantiated premises uncritically. I suspectt he's extrapolating from organized religions in Europe in the centuries before him, who took a lively glee in slaughtering one another--but who had come to realize that it was in no one's interst by 1648 at the latest, two generations before Voltaire was born.
If you truly consider that to have "rock-solid," i wonder if you'd be interested some lake front property i have in Florida.
@Setanta,
So many words, but wasted. It all could have been avoided, had you understood the term 'if'.
Voltaire does not need to explain the reasons behind motives. Nobody does. People who know logic, or even those who simply think for themselves understand that there is no requirement in logic that motives need to be explained.
If the atheist prince finds it in his interest to grind Voltaire to power, Voltaire is certain he will be ground to powder. Simple, undeniable. The premise stands, and your misconceived dodge falls.
That last sentence, first clause, ought to have read "have been."
@CTD,
First, Voltaire doesn't say "if," you do. Second, it's also bullshit that one needn't understand motives--to establish his propositions, he would be obliged to demonstrate the premises by explaining the motive.
If that's what passes for logic at your house, i also have a bridge, slightly used, at a good discount. Cash, no checks.
This is a waste of time--buh-bye.
@Setanta,
The concept of 'if'-ness is present in both premises, silly. Both are contingent, and obvious about being so. Perhaps someone "elite" enough to read competently will be happening along?
Perhaps they already have ...and realize the futility of disputing? Thanks to all who decline to waste people's time with irrelevant and non-responsive garbage.
I must say, with all due respect: "You don't know wtf you are talking about."
@edgarblythe,
That's effective
...but not as you intend. People ain't stupid. They know the difference between addressing an argument and insulting. Well, most do. Do you?
There's a wonderful irony in this joker complaining bout insults.
@Setanta,
I am amused by those who believe in the magic rule:
Employ the term 'irony' = unstoppable automatic instant win
In the original quote re atheist princes and courtiers, replace the word "atheist" with "Christian" and the statements still hold absolutely true, as history has proven repeatedly over the centuries. No difference at all in politics whether one is atheist or religious. You screwed this one up, Voltaire.
@MontereyJack,
Quote:In the original quote re atheist princes and courtiers, replace the word "atheist" with "Christian" and the statements still hold absolutely true, as history has proven repeatedly over the centuries. No difference at all in politics whether one is atheist or religious. You screwed this one up, Voltaire.
Wrong. Horrible failure, seeing as I provided the fuller context, from which we understand Voltaire's definition of 'atheist'.
When a God-fearing man finds it in his interest to grind Voltaire to powder - not some stooge atheist calling himself "Christian" disingenuously, mind you - the man will consider seriously whether or not he should disobey his creator.
Voltaire's anticipated your junk before you were even born. I'm no fan, but he's got you here. I suggest folks try and pay a little attention and/or quit thinking that pretending not to pay attention is a "clever" and sure-fire tactic.
Again, for the slow & inattentive, Voltaire disqualifies those who only SAY they worship some god or another. His criteria? Review and see. It's all there right in front of your eyes!
Voltaire is saying that only when you believe god has a big stick and will smite you if you disobey him will you be moral. Which is utter nonsense. Look at history. People repeatedly convince themselves that they are carrying out god's work and his will and do the most awful things in his name. Consider the Inquisition, the 30 Year's War, the Crusades, The Islamic conquest, the Spanish Conquest of the Americas, the closely-argued religious justification for slavery in the US and apartheid in South Africa--all done by deeply religious assholes. You're wrong. He's wrong.
@MontereyJack,
Quote:Voltaire is saying that only when you believe god has a big stick and will smite you if you disobey him will you be moral.
No he is not. Voltaire's own words are there; no need trying to put others into his mouth.
Quote:Which is utter nonsense. Look at history. People repeatedly convince themselves that they are carrying out god's work and his will and do the most awful things in his name. Consider the Inquisition, the 30 Year's War, the Crusades, The Islamic conquest, the Spanish Conquest of the Americas, the closely-argued religious justification for slavery in the US and apartheid in South Africa--all done by deeply religious assholes. You're wrong. He's wrong.
Your follow-up does not even match the words you chose to put in his mouth!
Voltaire has not said, and YOU FORGOT TO SAY "When you believe god has a big stick and will smite you if you disobey him you will be moral." Placement of the term 'will' makes a big difference there. Can you take no pride in practicing your "art"?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace