Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[karlhenning]

You evidently misunderstand both science and religion.  Your statements suggest strongly that you are not amenable to correcting your misunderstanding, so there's no point in trying.

His embrace of uncertainty goes only so far, after all, Dave . . . .

[Fëanor]

His embrace of uncertainty goes only so far, after all, Dave . . . .

The only thing I'm certain about is the value of skepticism.

I'm sufficiently convinced of the ideas that we would be better off being mutually supportive and that we ought protect our environment, that I'm will to give them a try.

[Florestan]

 Science is about breaking down received wisdom whereas religion is about promoting it

Wrong on both accounts.

[drogulus]

. . . Yes, applying reason to all questions will seem arduous . . . .

It will also seem, upon various specific applications, to be a misapplication of the faculty.

And (to repeat a not-at-all new idea) this seems to me especially obvious on a board dedicated to the discussion of music.

The idea that reason can be applied to everything in life, is itself irrational.

Most of us present have got over that long ago.  Those of us who are married, rather earlier than some others.

     It should be applied to questions concerning what is true. Always. Not all of life is a pursuit of truth, and the discussions about the greatest composer show that many people are confused about this, thinking that what they like and what is true just have to be the same thing. I'm willing to be quite irrational about what I like, but I have to be more careful about what I assert as true.

Many of the truth pursuers, historically, have been people of faith.

If he were interested in the truth, Ernie would own at least that much.

     And they used to be polytheists, too. I wouldn't worry about it, though.

[Florestan]

The arguement does not require that I prove all religionists believe they are totally right and the

But that's exactly what you claimed.

[DavidRoss]

...many people are confused about this, thinking that what they like and what is true just have to be the same thing [yourself included].  I'm willing to be quite irrational about what I like, but I have to be more careful about what I assert as true.

That would be a welcome change. 

[drogulus]

     I'm not a Christian. It has never occured to me that being better off had anything to do with this. It doesn't occur to me now that I'm an atheist because I'm better off being one. To me atheist means not having a religion. The question of who is better off comes downstream, after the decision has more properly been made on the basis of what reason and evidence recommends. Many believers also think so since they offer reasoning and evidence in support of their view that reason and evidence are not to be relied on for such questions.* Why am I not convinced by such maneuverings?

     _{* Maybe they would be better at supporting their claims if they took their own advice and stopped at the point of saying they believed no matter how stupid the claims are. Believers could support their view with sheer enthusiasm coupled with indignation. Instead the believers comes off as half rational, rational enough to suppose that a thin application of reason dreeses up their position but not rational enough to see it doesn't help.}

[Homo Aestheticus]

From the persective of global society this is the key problem with religions, their proponents all believe their religion is "exceptionally and miraculously right" and the rest "absolutely wrong".

Very true, Feanor.

And this just in today from the new Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols:

At the installation of the Most Rev Vincent Nichols at Westminster Cathedral, his predecessor, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, described a lack of faith as "the greatest of evils" and blamed atheism for war and destruction, implying that it was a greater evil even than sin itself.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6344175.ece

A lack of faith as the greatest of evils ?   Excuse me ?    

Mind you, this is the same man who just yesterday praised the "courage" of Irish priests who abused children from the 1930's to 1990's and then confessed.

His words:

"It took courage for religious orders and clergy to face the facts from their past. They are the real heroes of this story by finding the courage to come forward."

******

I am flabbergasted.

[Xenophanes]

What's with the endless fascination this forum has for Marxist writers? I don't get it.

Spinoza died in 1677.  Marx was born in 1818.  Spinoza could hardly have been a Marxist!

[drogulus]

Spinoza died in 1677.  Marx was born in 1818.  Spinoza could hardly have been a Marxist!

    Jesus walked on water. Stop being a metaphysical prig.  

[Fëanor]

But that's exactly what you claimed.

Not at all.  What I said was, "From the persective of global society this is the key problem with religions, their proponents all believe their religion is 'exceptionally and miraculously right' and the rest 'absolutely wrong'".  I didn' say "all their proponents".  There's a difference.  English is a syntactical language.

[Brian]

     It should be applied to questions concerning what is true. Always. Not all of life is a pursuit of truth, and the discussions about the greatest composer show that many people are confused about this, thinking that what they like and what is true just have to be the same thing. I'm willing to be quite irrational about what I like, but I have to be more careful about what I assert as true.


     And they used to be polytheists, too. I wouldn't worry about it, though.

I don't know who rewrote the title of this thread, but it is absolutely genius.

[Xenophanes]

    Jesus walked on water. Stop being a metaphysical prig.  

Yeah, JdP was trying for an argumentem ad hominem against Erich Fromm (and not even a very good one), whereas all I did was link to a page where Fromm says something about Spinoza's anthropology and ethics, JdP doesn't have anything to say about that. So I tried to direct him back to Spinoza's philosophy, not that I know that much about it. But I think Spinoza's philosophy should be allowed to make whatever contribution it can.

The UP has expressed some appreciation of Spinoza's philosophy.  I believe that every great philosophy has elements of truth, and I further believe that we have to approach people where they are.  I have tried to suggest to The UP that he try to see if he can be a good Spinozist for now, if that is what he wants.

[Josquin des Prez]

Yeah, JdP was trying for an argumentem ad hominem against Erich Fromm (and not even a very good one)

You didn't know he was a Marxist? It says so in his bloody Wikipedia bio.

[DavidRoss]

Not at all.  What I said was, "From the persective of global society this is the key problem with religions, their proponents all believe their religion is 'exceptionally and miraculously right' and the rest 'absolutely wrong'".  I didn' say "all their proponents".  There's a difference.  English is a syntactical language.

Yes, and "all their proponents believe" = "their proponents all believe."

[drogulus]

Yeah, JdP was trying for an argumentem ad hominem against Erich Fromm (and not even a very good one), whereas all I did was link to a page where Fromm says something about Spinoza's anthropology and ethics, JdP doesn't have anything to say about that. So I tried to direct him back to Spinoza's philosophy, not that I know that much about it. But I think Spinoza's philosophy should be allowed to make whatever contribution it can.

The UP has expressed some appreciation of Spinoza's philosophy.  I believe that every great philosophy has elements of truth, and I further believe that we have to approach people where they are.  I have tried to suggest to The UP that he try to see if he can be a good Spinozist for now, if that is what he wants.

      People could hardly survive a single day if they took the kind of pronouncements made here seriously. We are all materialists when it counts. Usually it doesn't count for much when it's just a discussion, where people fancy themselves believing idiocies to show their virtue. Do people really believe what they say? On the evidence I see here it hardly matters. When you've been educated up in nonsense by people you trust you make do how you can, and hold things true as badges of affiliation. True? What's that?

     

[Xenophanes]

You didn't know he was a Marxist? It says so in his bloody Wikipedia bio.

Errr .... Josquin, I have Erich Fromm's Marx's Concept of Man, Ungar, 1961, 1966, which also contains a long essay by Fromm and Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Karl Marx, translated by T. B. Bottomore, and some others. I don't you or Wikipedia to tell me something about Fromm.

No, Josquin, that is not actually what Wikipedia says, wisely no doubt, since "Marxist" is essentially a meaningless term without specifying what is meant.What is a Marxist?  Can you actually tell us? Which Marxism are you attributing to him and on what evidence? Are you looking at early Marx or late Marx? You do know that there are lots of opposing interpretations of Marx's writings, don't you? 

You are just throwing out what you regard as a pejorative term to discredit Fromm, and that is an argumentem ad hominem.  I picked something easily available on the net about Spinoza's humanism. What do you think of Fromm's comments?  I can only interpret your reaction as meaning you had no thoughts on them at all.

[Josquin des Prez]

No, Josquin, that is not actually what Wikipedia says, wisely no doubt, since "Marxist" is essentially a meaningless term without specifying what is meant.What is a Marxist?  Can you actually tell us? Which Marxism are you attributing to him and on what evidence? Are you looking at early Marx or late Marx? You do know that there are lots of opposing interpretations of Marx's writings, don't you?  

Please don't give me that. We all know what we are talking about. I have several books from him, including the popular Man for Himself, and it is clear to me that Erich Fromm is a social Marxist of the same irk of the Frankfurt school, spouting the same type of filth that ruined Russia during the Bolshevik regime and that is now ruining the west as we speak. At the heart of their theory lies the idea human nature is entirely the product of environment, which has paved the way for an endless series of attempts at social engineering and brainwashing. Everywhere you look you can see it now, and it's tearing our society apart. And what gave those men the right to experiment upon society, treating human beings like test rats?

[Xenophanes]

Please don't give me that. We all know what we are talking about. I have several books from him, including the popular Man for Himself, and it is clear to me that Erich Fromm is a social Marxist of the same irk of the Frankfurt school, spouting the same type of filth that ruined Russia during the Bolshevik regime and that is now ruining the west as we speak. At the heart of their theory lies the idea human nature is entirely the product of environment, which has paved the way for an endless series of attempts at social engineering and brainwashing. Everywhere you look you can see it now, and it's tearing our society apart. And what gave those men the right to experiment upon society, treating human beings like test rats?

We don't know what you are talking about because you neglect to tell us.

At the heart of their theory lies the idea human nature is entirely the product of environment, which has paved the way for an endless series of attempts at social engineering and brainwashing.

Fromm specifically denies that there is no human nature, of course, more than once and at some length. Maybe you should re-read him. You might look in Beyond the Chains of Illusion, My Encounters with Marx and Freud, Chapter III, entitled "The Concept of Man and His Nature."

This still has nothing to do with Fromm's comments on Spinoza's philosophy of man, which is what I cited him for.  Are you at all capable of commenting on that?

[Josquin des Prez]

I can only interpret your reaction as meaning you had no thoughts on them at all.

According to his interpretation, Spinoza is arguing precisely for the type of moral particularism which western civilization has been trying to obliterate since the advent of Jesus Christ. The obvious caveat in his interpretation of the good is: who gets to determine what human nature really is? Science? We are seeing in our present society where that type of thinking is leading to: barbarism.