Tradition betrayed

[71 dB]

Atheism is about not believing in God. It has nothing to do with sentimentality.

[Josquin des Prez]

Atheism is about not believing in God. It has nothing to do with sentimentality.

"Without God, everything is permissible", by Dostovesky.

Can you refute it?

[Josquin des Prez]

Don't or won't?

Can't, really.

Friendship? I have a couple of individuals whom i consider close friends. But they have their own lives, and their own pain, and i can't always count on them.

Love? Never met a girl whom i didn't find to be fickle and superficial. It might be someday that i might find somebody worthy of my love. It might be that one day i might also win the lottery. Not sure which is more likely at this point.

What's left, family? I have two lovely nieces whom i would stake my life for. But they are my sister's children, not mine.

So it seems that in the end i'm left on my own devices, as always.

[Cato]

"Without God, everything is permissible", by Dostovesky.

Can you refute it?

Immanuel Kant had tackled that question, before Dostoyevsky was born.

Friendship? I have a couple of individuals whom i consider close friends. But they have their own lives, and their own pain, and i can't always count on them.

Love? Never met a girl whom i didn't find to be fickle and superficial. It might be someday that i might find somebody worthy of my love. It might be that one day i might also win the lottery. Not sure which is more likely at this point.

What's left, family? I have two lovely nieces whom i would stake my life for. But they are my sister's children, not mine.

So it seems that in the end i'm left on my own devices, as always.

How old are you, Josquin?  Fickle and superficial girls are everywhere: perhaps you need to meet more people!





So it seems that in the end i'm left on my own devices, as always.
[/quote]

[71 dB]

"Without God, everything is permissible", by Dostovesky.

Can you refute it?

For me it's absurd to think without God everything is permissible. Evolution process has given us sense of morality. Even animals show morality. Delphin's have rescued humans from the water. What do they know about Bible or Koran?

Having God as the source of moral codes is problematic because there is no consensus what is God's word. There is more than one religion but there is only one atheism.

[Josquin des Prez]

Immanuel Kant had tackled that question, before Dostoyevsky was born.

And failed to answer it properly.

[Josquin des Prez]

Evolution process has given us sense of morality.

You mean the law of the jungle?

[kishnevi]

Okay, but how about the libertarian doctrinaire insistence on property rights?

If everything exists in and because of God, and you meant everything as in material things as well, then everything is God's property; "our" property rights are (1) at best those of a caretaker who has been entrusted with managing someone else's property and, which is more, has been given explicit instructions on how to do it, and these emphasize cooperation over competition, solidarity over division, generosity over profit-seeking and the social duties of the rich (to this fact attest each and every religion on Earth)  and (2) at worst those of an usurper who has appropriated for his exclusive personal use what belongs to God, thus depriving of it his equals in God and refusing them their legitimate share in it (to this fact attest that no man can claim that his property has been directly and explicitly bestowed on him by God). The latter applies especially in regard with the libertarian dogma of privatizing natural assets; as to the former, I'll leave it to you to explain how capitalism and libertarianism fit the instructions.

Unrelated question: how does the God-inspired genocides and ethnic cleansings mentioned in the OT (e.g. Amalekites, Book of Ezra) fit in panentheism?

First, you will note that I referred to libertarianism "in its general form" in my earlier answer.   Some of the ideas shoved under the rubric of libertarianism are not necessarily germane--such as the absolute insistence on property rights. 

But still it's rather easy.  First off, God has no property.  God does not "own" anything.  God is everything.  There is a difference.  So in using something you're not taking anything that already "belongs" to God.   But the key to property rights is to understand that they are not so much a positive thing--I can keep what's mine no matter what--but instead a negative concept--I can not take something which is already someone else's.  And most models of libertarianism presume co-operation and charity.  In fact, the free market is seen as the ultimate in co-operation.  But even the most Ayn Rand influenced forms accept co-operation, charity and social duty, although they may hide it under a different name.  Nor is there any real problem with capitalism--which libertarianism does not think of (in its ideal form) as some sort of everyone for themselves free for all, but as the relationships of free individuals giving each other their just due.  The sort of crony capitalism that runs rampant in society, by which the elite try to enlarge their share, is not the sort of thing libertarianism thinks of as capitalism.  (Or, as Any Rand said, real capitalism and real free markets have never actually existed at any point in history, because government and political influence have always gotten in the way.)

Jewish law developed a thorough system based on the idea of small businessmen being the key to economic structure, and merely sought to channel and regulate it.  As the rabbis expressed it, if it was not for the evil influence (meaning the ego, or the desire to possess for oneself) houses would not be built and people would not be fed.  It's the New Testament that is more anti-capitalism. 

As to the genocide question--valid point.  Usual response in Jewish tradition is either "Well, it was a one time thing and it doesn't apply now, so we can skip over it" or to argue that the Canaanites and related folks were so depraved that the only possible way to deal with them was to eliminate them--and that even then they were offered a chance to escape being killed or expelled (although only one group accepted the proffer).  Amalek in particular, because Amalek took his evil to the point of attacking the weakest members of the people of Israel at their lowest point.  Which is why Amalek is used as a euphemism for Nazis and Islamist extremists in modern writing.

[Cato]

And failed to answer it properly.

Thinkest thou, me bucko?

Pray,  0:)  let us read, therefore, your proper answer!   0:)

[71 dB]

You mean the law of the jungle?

You are on the wrong track. It's a sadly common mistake to think that evolution leads to the law of the jungle only as a moral guide. Think again.

[Josquin des Prez]

You are on the wrong track. It's a sadly common mistake to think that evolution leads to the law of the jungle only as a moral guide. Think again.

Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on your part.

Case in point: racialism, of which Darwin himself was a great proponent.

[Josquin des Prez]

Thinkest thou, me bucko?

Pray,  0:)  let us read, therefore, your proper answer!   0:)

Dostovesky did it better then i could ever possibly hope to do given an hundred years to mull over the subject. No God, everything goes. The progressive way.

[Josquin des Prez]

As far as translations go, I think the obvious choice is that produced by the Jewish Publication Society in the 1960s through 1980s

I'm not sure i trust officially sanctioned publications. Last time i went to a library i skimmed through most contemporary translations, Christian and Jewish alike, and they were all pretty dreadful.

Right now i have the Oxford version of the original 1611 King James translation, the original Jerusalem Bible translation, the ongoing Everett Fox translation plus the Richard Lattimore's rendition of the New Testament from the original Greek.

[Cato]

Dostoyevsky did it better than I could ever possibly hope to do, given a hundred years to mull over the subject. No God, everything goes. The progressive way.

That avoids the Kantian imperative!

A pity!

[71 dB]

Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on your part.

The law of the jungle is one (but strong) principle that depicts what happens in nature. It's not a direct principle for individuals. It's a strong principle only for animals that behave according to their instinct (developed by evolution). People just misinterpret these things (deliberately?). 

Case in point: racialism, of which Darwin himself was a great proponent.

Darwin was reflecting the beliefs of his time.

[Josquin des Prez]

The law of the jungle is one (but strong) principle that depicts what happens in nature. It's not a direct principle for individuals. It's a strong principle only for animals that behave according to their instinct (developed by evolution). People just misinterpret these things (deliberately?). 

And humans aren't animals?

Darwin was reflecting the beliefs of his time.

Where as you are reflecting the beliefs of your own time. Wonder how you get to cherry pick between things you like and things you don't like about those great luminaries of modernism. Evolution? Good science. Racialism? Bad science? Why? Because it has to be.

Prey tell though, what happened to this evolutionary moral compass through out the 19th century that made people believe in racial inequality?

[71 dB]

And humans aren't animals?

Religious animals. 

Where as you are reflecting the beliefs of your own time.

Sure I am. What else? Hopefully I am reflecting better beliefs of my time.

Wonder how you get to cherry pick between things you like and things you don't like about those great luminaries of modernism. Evolution? Good science. Racialism? Bad science? Why? Because it has to be.

I don't think I have done any cherry picking.

Good science means more (accurate) knowledge. Bad science doesn't. The results of good science can be used for bad as well as for good. Racialism is about using good science for bad. Never blame science or good scientists. Blame bad scientists and those who decide how science is used. 

What happened to this evolutionary moral compass through out the 19th century that made people believe in racial inequality?

Our moral compass (nice expression!) is always compromised. That's why bad things happen in the world and has always happened.

Anyway, racial inequality is not an idea of 19th century only. It has always been around, unfortunately.

I can't help seeing confusion in your words JdP. Maybe you trust on old texts too much and wonder how it all works with modern days. In many things our modern understanding is superior to earlier centuries because of scientific progress. We know that the universe is about 1.37*10^10 years old while people of the 19th century or before didn't have a clue. Old days where good only at things they could be like art and philosophy. 

[Josquin des Prez]

Sure I am. What else? Hopefully I am reflecting better beliefs of my time.

Better? This is getting inane. I was under the assumption that science dealt with facts.

Good science means more (accurate) knowledge. Bad science doesn't. The results of good science can be used for bad as well as for good. Racialism is about using good science for bad. Never blame science or good scientists. Blame bad scientists and those who decide how science is used.

Once again, i was under the impression that science was supposed to be about fact. Am i a bad scientist if i start measuring differences in IQ, or just a scientist?

Our moral compass (nice expression!) is always compromised.

Compromised by what, exactly? So we are all naturally good and wonderful, except when we aren't. Really deep philosophy there.
The point of course is that there is no reason to be nice and good. If i can gain an advantage by cheating, stealing and hurting others, why not do it? If there's nothing more to life then this existence, and if everything is over once we are dead, morality makes little sense. Heck, there is no objective point to life at all, not just morality. Why bother sacrificing your life at the altar of an higher principle, or ideal? Its a waist of time. You are going to die, and that's that. There is only one imperative for such a world view: selfishness. You'd have to be insane to act either wise. Your time is limited, might as well make the best of it, and screw everything else.

Anyway, racial inequality is not an idea of 19th century only. It has always been around, unfortunately.

But its the 19th century that saw it under rationalistic, scientific terms. If you believe that the European races are superior and more evolved then, say, the negro races, then the only obvious conclusion is that humanity would be better off if Europeans were to replace the negro altogether. Darwin himself actually espoused such a view. He didn't of course advocate genocide, he merely pointed out that that would have been the natural course of things, eventually. Evolution, in essence.

To me, modern liberalism is nothing more then a secular, exoteric religion developed to mask the frightening truths uncovered by 19th century rationalism, so that people can still pretend to be free and progressive while brushing all those uncomfortable realities under the carpet.

[71 dB]

Better? This is getting inane. I was under the assumption that science dealt with facts.

Facts if they have been discovered, assumptions and theories is not.

I am not familiar with every scientific discovery or theory. The science of today is often so developed that it takes years for a person to assimilate the message. But I have a scientific view of the world and it gives me ability to see the stupidity and dangers of religious faith. You constantly mix things while trying to nullify my words. I am just a person believing in science and admiring it's accomplishments.

Once again, i was under the impression that science was supposed to be about fact. Am i a bad scientist if i start measuring differences in IQ, or just a scientist?

You are a decent scientists if you can measure the differences in IQ reliably. You are a good scientist if you discover that intelligence is not a constant for each person but can be practiced. Even better scientists know that there is different kinds of intelligence and that an IQ test only tests certain kind of intelligence. Science teaches us that the "facts" are often complex and nuanced.

Compromised by what, exactly?

Fear and greed for example.

So we are all naturally good and wonderful, except when we aren't. Really deep philosophy there.

Should there be deep philosophy? You are wearing a hat except when you aren't. Does that lack of deeper philosophy give you hard time with your hat? Again you seem to be confused.

What's good and bad is a subjective question but thanks to the moral compass given by evolution we often agree. Religions took that agreement and claims it to be the will of God. Our understanding of the world has changed over the time and so the needle of the moral compass rotates slowly. Religions are reluctant to respond.   

The point of course is that there is no reason to be nice and good.

Why do you say something that stupid? How can you expect others to be nice to you if you aren't?

If i can gain an advantage by cheating, stealing and hurting others, why not do it?

Penitentiaries are full of inmates who are just as stupid as your question.

If there's nothing more to life then this existence, and if everything is over once we are dead, morality makes little sense. Heck, there is no objective point to life at all, not just morality. Why bother sacrificing your life at the altar of an higher principle, or ideal? Its a waist of time. You are going to die, and that's that. There is only one imperative for such a world view: selfishness. You'd have to be insane to act either wise. Your time is limited, might as well make the best of it, and screw everything else.

If you think this way you have a very long way understanding atheism. The fact that this life is all we have makes life extremely valuable. Selfishness leads to greed and other negative thing but it can be a positive force too. We want to be admired, loved, liked, respected etc. "Screwing everything else" won't help much.

Doing good just to get to heaven after death is what's selfish!

But its the 19th century that saw it under rationalistic, scientific terms. If you believe that the European races are superior and more evolved then, say, the negro races, then the only obvious conclusion is that humanity would be better off if Europeans were to replace the negro altogether. Darwin himself actually espoused such a view. He didn't of course advocate genocide, he merely pointed out that that would have been the natural course of things, eventually. Evolution, in essence.

Darwin discovered evolution. It's too much to ask him to fully understand perfectly all the implications of his discovery. Also, he wasn't totally free of the views of his time. 

To me, modern liberalism is nothing more then a secular, exoteric religion developed to mask the frightening truths uncovered by 19th century rationalism, so that people can still pretend to be free and progressive while brushing all those uncomfortable realities under the carpet.

What is modern liberalism to you? Gay marriages?

[Cato]

In one of Theodore Barber's books called The Human Nature of Birds , he relates two interesting stories: the findings of a bird researcher in the field, and of a chimpanzee researcher also in the field.

The former lived in an open cottage, and spent years allowing birds to fly into her house, placed birdseed on her clothing, and trained the local birds to trust her.  One day a small finch flew into her cottage, hovered by her face, flew away, came back, hovered by her face and chirping, flew away in the same direction, until it struck the researcher that the bird wanted her to follow it!  As she followed it, with the bird repeating the same procedure, she was eventually led to the bird's nest...on the ground, complete with a few eggs.

The bird had deduced that the human would follow - and do the good thing - and replace the nest in the tree.  The human would not take and eat the eggs like a predator, or attack the bird itself, but would perform the opposite of violence, the opposite of (for the bird) something bad.

Certainly for the human, finding eggs might be something good!  But the bird chose to risk having the human involved.

The chimpanzee researcher witnessed something just as - or even more - extraordinary.  An adolescent male had wandered away from its troop, and the researcher spotted some lions on the prowl not far away almost at the same moment that the chimp saw them as well.

The chimp looked back and forth between the lions and the troop: suddenly it squawked an apparent warning to the troop...and then charged at the lions!  Perhaps the chimp had a severe case of over-confidence, but whatever images or non-verbal thoughts were in his mind, his conclusion was not to run and perhaps survive, but to start a fight which he "had to have known he could not win," and to allow the troop to escape.

Who said that there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for a friend?

(Professor Barber was a fellow Ohioan who made his mark in psychology/psychiatry by criticizing "hypnosis," which he usually placed in ironic quotes, and demonstrated that what seemed to be "hypnotic states" were not that at all.  He died some years ago.)

(P.S. My copy of the book is packed away right now in the vast Cato Archives: it strikes me that the "chimpanzee" in the above story might have been another higher primate, but I cannot check for sure.  In either case, the result was the same.)