[originally posted in *** August 2012 low content thread ***]
Advice to libertarian fathers
The interview and followup videos he's talking about are here, and here, respectively. I just wish he didn't switch gears the way he did halfway through.
Actually, it is true that religion has always been a royal pain in the backside of the State. In fact, religion is the #1 enemy of the State, this is why it is the first line of production to be monopolized by the State. The modern secular narrative says that wars are caused by religion. What rubbish. Wars are not caused by religion, they are caused by governments.
The problem with Christianity is not that it is a religion. The problem with Christianity is that its founding document is mostly fabricated and, therefore, contains a tremendous amount of misleading and false information, hardly a reliable foundation for organizing one's entire life and being.
If you want to break the back of the State, you will not do it with secularism. It cannot be done. Secularism is the greatest trick ever played by the State, lulling people into the ridiculous idea that "rational" government and "enlightened" legislation is the solution to the problems created by "irrational" religions. Secularism was created by the State's kept priestly class (in particular, the Jesuits) to stem the tide of Protestantism.
Clayton -
Clayton:Actually, it is true that religion has always been a royal pain in the backside of the State. In fact, religion is the #1 enemy of the State,
1) only because it wants the play the same role the State does of dictating your life, and the government hates competition. (As most proponants of monopoly do.)
2) That wasn't even an argument the guy even made.
this is why it is the first line of production to be monopolized by the State. The modern secular narrative says that wars are caused by religion. What rubbish. Wars are not caused by religion, they are caused by governments.
...right because religion is never the mcguffin in a war narrative. People are never motivated to go to war, feel justified in conducting war, and willing to do things they would never do otherwise without the belief of God on their side.
Um. It sounds like you just said "The problem with Christianity is not that it is a religion"...and then went on to describe what a basis for religious belief sounds like.
I find it comical that you would actually suggest that religious belief is a way to end the State rather than a necessity for it.
You really surprised me with this piece, Clayton. You usually seem a lot more considered.
Apparently, you've not seen this thread.
I don't disagree with anything Larken Rose says in that piece but I also think that most secularists do not think deeply enough about the role of religion in free society. It's not just "irrationalism", it really is part of the glue that holds society itself together. Religion can be blamed for wars and statism only in the same sense that academic study or engineering or UPS can be; after all, these disciplines and lines of production all contribute to the power of the State directly or indirectly. It's a Nirvana fallacy.
Stop believing in God ????????? ----------------------------- Liberty
What's the causal connection?
Secular statists still worship a god. that is, the state.
The church has no power to dictate ones life without the state. If the church uses coercion to dictate people's lives, then it isnt a church anymore, its called what we have known to be the state.
God created us with free will, and the state is the antithesis of freedom.
Usually most people justify the state under a utilitarian POV; oh its ok that an X number of iraqi got killed, at least we got their oil and stabilized our economy (complete bullshit).
Most statist christians that i know do not advocate forcing religious beliefs upon another, that is not true faith, usually they advocate for a state because they have never envisioned life without one. Its like if youve come from north korea and is asked about civil rights, freedom etc, they would not believe you.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Clayton:Religion can be blamed for wars and statism only in the same sense that academic study or engineering or UPS can be; after all, these disciplines and lines of production all contribute to the power of the State directly or indirectly. It's a Nirvana fallacy.
This doesn't refute my point, as I never made the case that religion "contributes to the power of the State", at least not "in the same sense" as something like technological advancement would. So it's quite ironic that you would actually say that that very thing works "in the same sense".
Again, I've heard of a lot more wars fought on religions grounds (figuratively and literally, I suppose) than on the basis of one side uses forks and the other side uses chopsticks. Again, throughout history religion is often the mcguffin in the war narrative. People are motivated to go to war, feel justified in conducting war, and are willing to do things they would never do otherwise without the belief of God on their side...due to religious beliefs, more than any other source. I would even venture to say more than all other possible sources combined.
Stop believing in God ????????? ----------------------------- Liberty What's the causal connection?
This is a total straw man, as I never even implied there was a connection...or that belief in God even automatically qualified as "religion", for that matter.
Besides, I could easily ask you the opposite.
Again, I never denied religion as an enemy of the governmental State. In fact I indirectly agreed with you in your statement that it is a "royal pain in the backside of the State"...but this does not automatically mean it's because religion is anti-Statism or pro-liberty. In my view it only reflects the obvious and predictable consequence of two institutions, both whose entire existence is to monopolize and dominate and control your life...and of course by definition, a monopolist doesn't like competition.
So just because Stalin is an enemy of Hitler, it doesn't automatically mean one of them is a / "the" good guy. And it certainly doesn't mean that either offers an inherent path to freedom.
Once again I'm really surprised by your position here.
it only reflects the obvious and predictable consequence of two institutions, both whose entire existence is to monopolize and dominate and control your life...and of course by definition, a monopolist doesn't like competition.
I think this is the sticking point.
What is it about religion that makes it inherently monopolistic anymore than, say, the retail industry? Sure, Wal-Mart would love to be the sole retailer but so long as they don't use force or fraud (or government, which is the same) to bring about a monopoly, how do their ambitions harm anyone else?
With the exception of religions that perform human sacrifice, for example, until you mix religion with the State, it is voluntary, that is, it does not entail the use or threat of violence. If the Vatican has ambitions to rule the Universe And All It Contains, fine, let them have their ambitions - so long as they do not threaten or use force or engage in fraud.
And my contention is that religion is not ambivalent with respect to the social order. Unlike the State which has a discoordinating effect on the social order, all other lines of voluntary production and exchange - including religion - have a coordinating effect on the social order. I think it is intellectually unjustifiable to single out religion qua religion - that is, religion as it relates to the voluntary interaction of individuals for whatever religious purposes - for special criticism as against any other line of voluntary production or exchange.
Clayton:What is it about religion that makes it inherently monopolistic anymore than, say, the retail industry? Sure, Wal-Mart would love to be the sole retailer but so long as they don't use force or fraud (or government, which is the same) to bring about a monopoly, how do their ambitions harm anyone else?
Are you seriuosly suggesting that religious ambitions haven't / don't lead individuals to harm others?
With the exception of religions that perform human sacrifice, for example, until you mix religion with the State, it is voluntary, that is, it does not entail the use or threat of violence.
You're honestly suggesting that religious beliefs do not include the use of violence to enforce doctrine? I'll play your exception game and grant you the Jains, but come on. You cannot be serious.
If the Vatican has ambitions to rule the Universe And All It Contains, fine, let them have their ambitions - so long as they do not threaten or use force or engage in fraud.
Right. And my entire point is that yes, while it may be a long while since the last time the Vatican specifically aggressed on others, but you're generalizing this entire group of literally billions of people (i.e. those who identify as "religious") and suggesting that their religion does not entice or condone or encourage or motivate or justify aggression (outside of human sacrifice apparently), and I say that's complete nonsense.
Even if we ignore the actual violent doctrine contained within the dogma of various religions...even if we pretend that violent aggressors who use religion to justify their violent actions are all wrong about their religion, and are condemned by the dictates of their religion, and will be condemned by their god...this still does nothing to change the fact that millions if not billions of people (certainly throughout history) engage in aggressive behavior almost entirely in the name of their religion.
And you're actually sitting here suggesting that "Wars are not caused by religion". That is rubbish. I don't deny that wars end up largely being dictated by governments, and are constantly supported and exacerbated, and orchestrated, and even in some cases entirely started by governments. But to suggest that religion or religious belief doesn't or can't be a "cause" of war, and that wars are not often (if not majorly) waged by religious people, who largely justify their actions in part (if not in whole) by appealing to their religion, is just naive to the point of nonsense.
And again, I state plainly, simply being a theist doesn't automatically qualify someone as being "religious" and certainly not as having a "religion" in the context we are discussing.
This has little to do with a simple belief in a deity. This has virtually everything to do with religion, as defined by a doctrine and/or set of dogma that one lives one's life by, which is guided and founded largely by an overarching institutional authority, with a bureaucracy of officials, and/or is based largely in a set of mystical beliefs which one ascribes to and comes to not by logic and reason, but by faith and collective acceptance.
This sounds largely like not only what most people think of when they hear and use the word "religion", but also quite closely describes the State as well.
When you talk of "role of religion in free society", as if "religion" is a necessary condition for such a society, I'm curious as to what exactly you're talking about.
And my contention is that religion is not ambivalent with respect to the social order. Unlike the State which has a discoordinating effect on the social order, all other lines of voluntary production and exchange - including religion - have a coordinating effect on the social order.
I think this is the sticking point. You think that religion is somehow guaranteed to be, or is naturally, or is ultimately, fundamentally and principally (and principle-ly) made up of voluntary action. I honestly don't see it that way. This has not been my experience.
I think it is intellectually unjustifiable to single out religion qua religion - that is, religion as it relates to the voluntary interaction of individuals for whatever religious purposes - for special criticism as against any other line of voluntary production or exchange.
Well hell. I think it's unjustifiable to single out guns qua guns - that is, guns as they relate to non-aggressive interaction of individuals for whatever gun purposes...
What does that have to do with anything? What you just said is basically say "well I don't think it's reasonable to condemn religion as it relates to non-condemnable aspects of it."
We're not talking about religion "as it relates to voluntary interaction"...we're talking about religion causing war (or more specifically, aggression, and State-like behavior/conditions). And you say that doesn't happen. Appealing to voluntary aspects included in religion does absolutely nothing to support that.
Again, just because religion is often a "royal pain in the backside of the State", does not automatically mean it's because religion is anti-Statism or pro-liberty. The enemy of your enemy is not automatically your friend. And it still surprises me that this is what your entire case seems to boil down to.
I haven't seen any support for the idea that religion is a necessary condition for a free society, if that's some other point you're asserting.
@JJ: You and I are not using the word "religion" the same way. Rewind back in time to tribal times... the shaman or medicine-man did not start wars, he had no interest in starting wars. He was primarily a wise man, an advisor, a philosopher. People came to him because he was recognized to be wise not because he could compel it. This is the essence of religion - people who are voluntarily seeking advice and guidance from other people who are recognized for their wisdom and insight. This is analogous to the origins of law in the voluntary bringing of disputes to elders recognized for their wise judgment. In many cases, both roles may have been joined in one individual (insight is insight, after all).
Religion under the State is compulsive and does play a role in war. But the operative phrase is "under the State". The same could be said for "the steel industry under the State" or "the aircraft industry under the State". Every line of production is turned to the service of the State and its ends (including war).
As for why religion has so much bullshit in it, I think a lot of this can be explained as low-tech, anarchistic Intellectual Property protections... think of it as stone-age DRM. Wrapping your non-bullshit insights in layers and layers of bullshit is one way to frustrate the attempts of your customers or competitors to copy your insights without paying you. So, it's a way to make sure you get paid. "To learn the secret of the serpent, bring your offerings to the alter next week at this same time."
Clayton:This is the essence of religion - people who are voluntarily seeking advice and guidance from other people who are recognized for their wisdom and insight.
Yeah that's a definition of "religion" that I've never heard in my life.
Dictionary.com says:
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
Merriam-Webster says:
Wikipedia says:
a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. According to some estimates there are roughly 4200 religions in the world.[1]
Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration a god or gods, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture.
The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a social aspect.[2] A poll showed that 59% of the world's population is religious, 23% are not religious and 13% are atheists.
I could present more, but I think you get the idea. I have no idea where that definition is coming from. I never realized a couple of kids asking their grandfather how to construct a good slingshot was a perfect example of "religion".
You cannot be serious. I honestly mean no insult to you, but that has to be one of the most moronic things I've ever heard in my life.
I cannot believe anyone would even begin to suggest that people tithe money to a church because they're just dying to know what the preacher is going to say next. I'm actually dumbfounded. If this wasn't a textual format I wouldn't be able to finish a sentence.
I guess we can easily smooth over this debate by saying that religion per religion is not statist but religion per the state is.
It's pretty trite and it will most probably not provide a satisfactory conclusion, but I think that it would be useful to distinguish religion in the above manner. After all, we must distinguish the essence of a thing from its necessary or contingent accidents to give us certainty that it does in fact, essentially cause what we think it causes.
The shaman or medicine-man has always been where people go when they have "big questions" or to get help with big problems, questions that can't be answered by casual discussion with peers and problems that can't be solved by ordinary means. This is the origin of religion. Clearly, it's changed a lot since 10-20kya.
The word "religion" as used in the dictionary refers to the present usage of the word in modern lexicon and can be primarily broken down into "doxa" (beliefs) and "praxis" (rituals). Western religions (Catholicism, Protestantism and their spawn) tend to be heavily doxa-centric... creeds, catechism, ideological assent (belief, faith) is the most important defining feature of the member of the religion. Praxis is secondary. The idea of a "non-practicing" religious person is unintelligible in some other cultures - the religion pretty much is the practice. Beliefs are secondary.
So, are you suggesting they tithe because the preacher has a gun in their ribs?
Clayton:The word "religion" as used in the dictionary refers to the present usage of the word in modern lexicon and can be primarily broken down into "doxa" (beliefs) and "praxis" (rituals). Western religions (Catholicism, Protestantism and their spawn) tend to be heavily doxa-centric... creeds, catechism, ideological assent (belief, faith) is the most important defining feature of the member of the religion. Praxis is secondary. The idea of a "non-practicing" religious person is unintelligible in some other cultures - the religion pretty much is the practice. Beliefs are secondary.
Bingo. And what's more, even in your antiquated breakdown, I still don't see "people who are voluntarily seeking advice and guidance from other people who are recognized for their wisdom and insight" in "beliefs and rituals".
I would even generally agree on "beliefs and rituals" as a decent barebones breakdown of "religion" in the modern, commonly understood sense. I still don't see how that qualifies as your definition of people seeking advice from medicine men.
Sure most religious rituals have always been led by some religious official or authority...but the essence of "religion" is not found in the simple act of people seeking advice. That happens all the time...to a point at which "religion" loses virtually all meaning. What defines "religion" is as I and the dictionaries said, a set of belief systems that generally relate to humanity and spirituality, and usually require or at least encourage rituals. Which again, is basically what you just broke down here, "beliefs and rituals". But again, just because "religious" "leaders" are involved, does not mean that they are the defining characteristic of "religion".
Again, leader-type figures who are consulted for advice exist everywhere. Parents, friends, elders of all kind...people with higher rank, higher status (again of all kind), people even with simply more experience. People are voluntarily sought after for advice all the time. This does not mean "religion" is existing in all these places and occurances. That's just ridiculous. "seeking advice = religion". Nonsense.
Not at all. I'm suggesting people give money (and time and plenty of other resources) to their church because they believe it is "the right thing to do"...because it is something God wants them to do. Whether they like the sermon or not has essentially no bearing on people's inclination to donate to their church...or even more accurately, their religious sect.
If people cared so much about what the preacher was saying...if his words were what got them up every weekend and down to sit in an uncomfortable pew, probably scrunched with other people, in a probably uncomfortable tempurature for anywhere from 1-3 hours or more...why then are there always people falling asleep in church? Why then are people not jockeying for the best seats...and sitting on the edge of them the entire sermon? Why when people go to church do they often times seem as though they are going to perform some chore they'd rather not have to do...rather than the way they seem when going to a movie theater, or a Las Vegas show?
After all, they're paying good money for the sole purpose of keeping that preacher talking, right? That's the whole reason they paid their money, that's the whole reason they're there, is it not?
Why do people who go to church talk about it more as an obligation as opposed to a pleasure?
I know plenty of people who hate their preacher, and hate his sermons. They find them everything from boring, to inflammatory, to accusatory, to patronizing. But they still go. Every Sunday. They get up early, get all dressed up, and slough of to their church...and give their tithe.
You might just go to a church and ask people themselves why they give. I can pretty much guarantee you will get exactly zero answers to the effect of they are paying their ticket fee for admission to the preacher show.
Again, if I really want to hear "the secret of the serpent" that bad, I'll just go. I've never seen anyone checking my stub at the door. How exactly does this "intellectual property protection" of "bullshit-wrapping" guarantee a payout again?
Do you think that government involvement in banking changes the character of banking from what it is otherwise (free banking)? Of course, on this forum, that's a rhetorical question... The incestuous relationship of the State with the church over several millenia has changed the character of religion much more deeply than government has yet managed to alter the character of banking. So, the modern church is virtually unrecognizable as a manifestation of the religious within society.
We have some glimpses of this even in recent history, check out the Protestant Reformation. Many aspects of the Reformation are a wonderful history of how religious enlightenment can work hand-in-hand with decentralization. But one of the regular features of the Reformation as it swept across Europe and into the New World was congregational zeal... churches packed to the rafters with people dying to hear multi-hour long sermons. This illustrates that there was a genuine, popular demand for something those preachers were saying. The Holy Mother Church couldn't draw crowds like that except with the promise of indulgences (fraud) or the spectacle of burning heretics at the stake (violent aggression).
I don't think the Reformation was the pristine grassroots movement we are sold in the history books (likely, there was a lot of playing-of-games on the part of the minor monarchs who stood to benefit most from shaking the slave-collar of the Holy Roman Empire) but it was nevertheless definitely a historical process that resulted in greater human liberty, decentralization of power and would eventually even play a role in the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the spectacular rise out of subsistence living that has been made possible for almost everyone in the modern world.
When I use the word "religion" (sans government), I'm referring to something even more extreme than Protestantism. Protestantism was a "return to roots" within the larger rubric of Christianity. All the Protestant groups claim to be "original Christians" in some sense, many to the exclusion of the others and almost all in exclusion to the Catholic Church. What I envision is a "return to root-roots" in terms of religion-qua-religion... paganism, astrology, pantheism, etc. These are the deep roots of religion sans government and I think a revival of the root religious stance within human culture could have an exponentially more powerful effect than the Reformation did in terms of decentralizing power and expanding the horizons of human liberty.
I'm still working out some of these ideas for myself so I'm not explaining myself clearly, here. Apologies.
*Protestantism has less socialistic tendencies than Catholicism, tends to de-emphasize experts (bureaucrats, proxy decision-makers) and is more decentralized resulting in a higher degree of local variation in beliefs and practices (less "central-planning")... then there is the so-called Calvinist work-ethic but this may be a bit of a historical exaggeration.
But you're dodging the question. There are exactly three possibilities:
a) People attend church voluntarily
b) People attend church as a result of fraud
c) People attend church as a result of aggression/threats of aggression
Now, b&c are true of some religions... Scient0logy comes to mind. But other than the few quack religions that actually threaten you with aggressive force or engage in fraud, how can it be the cause that people attend church involuntarily?
I don't know the answers to your questions but I don't need to. All I need to know is that people aren't being threatened or beaten up or defrauded in order to make them go to church. If none of those things is the case, then they're attending voluntarily, even if they fall asleep or hate the sermon.
You have yet to really respond to my objections, other than to essentially claim "well, I'm talking about something else from historical times...even though I'm using modern examples of people tithing to the church."
1) You claim "religion has always been a royal pain in the backside of the State". Do you deny that this is by and large because the underlying nature of religion is the same as the State in that it is inclined to the play the same role the State does of dictating your life, and the government hates competition. (As most proponants of monopoly do.)?
2) You claim that "Wars are not caused by religion". Do you deny that throughout history religion is often the mcguffin in the war narrative. People are motivated to go to war, feel justified in conducting war, and are willing to do things they would never do otherwise without the belief of God on their side...due to religious beliefs, more than any other source?
3) You allege that religion is just as monopolistic as Walmart. Do you deny there is a difference between inherent dictates that control one's life that make up religion, and the profit-driven monopolistic tendencies of a company?
4) You ask "so long as they don't use force or fraud (or government, which is the same) to bring about a monopoly, how do their ambitions harm anyone else?"...seemingly as if to imply religious ambitions haven't / don't lead individuals to harm others. Do you really believe that to be the case?
5) You talk of "role of religion in free society", as if "religion" is a necessary condition for such a society...do you believe that is the case? (Unless of course you wish to stick with your definition of "religion" as "people who are voluntarily seeking advice and guidance from other people who are recognized for their wisdom and insight". In that case, I'm not sure there will be much more to talk about, as when a couple of kids asking their grandfather how to construct a good slingshot becomes a perfect example of "religion", I'm afraid I don't really have much more interest in persuing the line of conversation.
6) You seem to be implying that just because religion is often a "royal pain in the backside of the State", it automatically means religion is anti-Statism or pro-liberty.
7) You allege that people tithe to their church becase of a "low-tech, anarchistic Intellectual Property protections"... like a "stone-age DRM", which requires them to pay so that they might hear "the secret of the serpent". Do you deny that many if not most people tithe to their chruch regardless of how they feel about the sermon, and in fact many times fall asleep during it, and in fact would rather not be there at all?
Well Clayton I pretty much agreed with everything you were saying in this thread until you brought up Protestantism. Luther wanted to strip Christianity of all its humanistic features and put the focus solely on God. Because of that it is in fact the opposite of what you're saying, since the emphasise on the Church's functions of traditional morality and customary law were to be abandoned for the argument that salvation comes only through belief in God; the after-life and belief is all that matters, good deeds and one's lot on earth are irrelevant. It was for this reason that Luther didn't care about wiping out his rivals - kill them all and let God sort it out! It's certainly not less socialistic than Catholicism - all the violent, religious communistic mass movements of the medieval and early modern periods were based on Protestantism or on common influences. The reason that Catholicism emphasised religious experts was so that natural elites could be identified to uphold the beneficial traditions - Protestant tolerance of any new idea is the root of the egalitarian claptrap we are stuck with today. And come on, the Protestants and proto-Protestants like Wycliffe and Hus always revered the state and demanded that the state enforce Protestant belief, since all that matters is belief in God and so in order to save the most number of souls force can be employed: the ends justify the means.
The so-called Reformation was essentially a reaction to the humanistic developments in Catholicism that arose especially during what is called the Renaissance. Where Catholicism was focusing on what institutions are best for man both in this world and the next, the Protestants wanted to focus only on spiritual salvation and throw the rest out. Protestantism is essentially Catholicism without the beneficial parts and only the ridiculous, supernatural parts. The statolatry of today is essentially Protestantism with the state, rather than God, as the focus on salvation. The reason why there was that demand that you refer to is because the promises of the Protestant preachers were all so fantastic - salvation without good works!! It's exactly the same 'something for nothing' mentality at the root of the statist war of all against all.
Also, indulgences were NOT fraud - they were voluntary fines through which one could be forgiven for temporal sins. The Church did not say that they gave one passage into heaven or any such rot. The reason that indulgences and confession don't exist in Protestantism is because salvation comes from belief only and deeds are ultimately irrelevant.
Clayton: But you're dodging the question. There are exactly three possibilities: a) People attend church voluntarily b) People attend church as a result of fraud c) People attend church as a result of aggression/threats of aggression Now, b&c are true of some religions... Scient0logy comes to mind. But other than the few quack religions that actually threaten you with aggressive force or engage in fraud,
Now, b&c are true of some religions... Scient0logy comes to mind. But other than the few quack religions that actually threaten you with aggressive force or engage in fraud,
There are many who would say that is redundant. The notion that some religions qualify as "quack", while others do not, is quite telling of how one might be able to actually saddle with your views here.
By what metric does one determine a religion is "quack"?
Well Clayton I pretty much agreed with everything you were saying in this thread until you brought up Protestantism. Luther wanted to strip Christianity of all its humanistic features and put the focus solely on God.
Because of that it is in fact the opposite of what you're saying, since the emphasise on the Church's functions of traditional morality and customary law were to be abandoned for the argument that salvation comes only through belief in God;
the after-life and belief is all that matters, good deeds and one's lot on earth are irrelevant.
It was for this reason that Luther didn't care about wiping out his rivals - kill them all and let God sort it out! It's certainly not less socialistic than Catholicism - all the violent, religious communistic mass movements of the medieval and early modern periods were based on Protestantism or on common influences.
The reason that Catholicism emphasised religious experts was so that natural elites could be identified
to uphold the beneficial traditions - Protestant tolerance of any new idea is the root of the egalitarian claptrap we are stuck with today.
And come on, the Protestants and proto-Protestants like Wycliffe and Hus always revered the state and demanded that the state enforce Protestant belief,
since all that matters is belief in God and so in order to save the most number of souls force can be employed: the ends justify the means.
The so-called Reformation was essentially a reaction to the humanistic developments in Catholicism
that arose especially during what is called the Renaissance. Where Catholicism was focusing on what institutions are best for man both in this world and the next, the Protestants wanted to focus only on spiritual salvation and throw the rest out.
Protestantism is essentially Catholicism without the beneficial parts and only the ridiculous, supernatural parts.
The statolatry of today is essentially Protestantism with the state, rather than God, as the focus on salvation.
Clayton: Anti-Epicurean to the core, no doubt. And I have witnessed the destructive effects of actually holding these kind of beliefs in my own family. Protestant theology forms a kind of "escapism" where, rather than confronting and defeating the causes of misery in one's own life, one simply ignores them and turns his eyes upward.
Anti-Epicurean to the core, no doubt. And I have witnessed the destructive effects of actually holding these kind of beliefs in my own family. Protestant theology forms a kind of "escapism" where, rather than confronting and defeating the causes of misery in one's own life, one simply ignores them and turns his eyes upward.
What a good point. QFT.
Well I think we agree on quite a few points, Clayton, but I thought I would still clear some things up:
You can't get much more anti-humanist than that.
Exactly.
Well, I think your view of the Church is overly forgiving.
I never really commented on the Church overall. I was talking merely about the results of the Reformation, which created a situation worse than that which proceeded it. Catholicism was obviously not perfect, but the other sects were and are even less so. Your criticisms of the Catholic Church, therefore, don't really apply to what I was referring to: Catholicism itself. In fact, for the entire thread you were arguing that it is not religion in itself that causes wars, but states. Now you bring up an exception and argue that the Catholic religion does in fact cause wars!! Any particular state structure of a Papacy is not integral to Catholicism.
The Church played a huge role in sanctioning, endorsing and enabling the oppression of the State and, in turn, received assistance from the State in pressing its own agenda of religious monopoly.
Well the Church was just as much in competition with states as it was in cooperation with them. And here I'm talking specifically about voluntary relationships - especially the option of having one's cases heard in religious courts vs. other options. That's an example of a means through which the religion evolved according to its utility in earthly matters.
Also it seems to me that you're viewing the Medieval period as extremely statist and hampered as a result of that. In reality, it was a period where there was much opportunity for competing legal systems, including the Lex Mercatoria. Across the period there was a great economic and population growth, and unseen urbanisation in Europe. I couldn't believe that you referred to the 'schackles' of the Holy Roman Emperor - the so-called 'Empire' was in Medieval times very decentralised and extremely libertarian compared to the Europe of today. Note that the divine right of kings did not exist until after the Reformation and that Medieval writers were staunch defenders of the concept of tyrannicide.
A tremendous amount of energy was unleashed in the Reformation and it is impossible to believe that that was just "anti-humanist reactionism".
Placing the key emphasis only on God and faith and rejecting man and his works can't be viewed in this way.
Well, in a direct comparison, I think the best that can be said is that both are founded on a fradulent document filled with outrageously evil moral lessons
But that's what's key to my point - that the Protestants wanted to use this document to a much greater extent, while the Catholics emphasised their own evolving tradition and its use to man. Really the more I think about it Catholicism was very much like the 'First Church of Mises' that we've discussed: it is primarily a means to the end of human cooperation and flourishing, but employs a non-rational apparatus to tie it all together. The most important part of the founding document of the Catholic church was in fact the Golden Rule and its temporal application.
Have you read any works by Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn? To him, extreme Catholicism is anarchic.
indulgences are a sham
How are they a sham? This is all they were: 'The Catholic Church believes by x action you have committed a sin. We the Catholic Church (not God!) will consider that you have made amends for that sin should you pay y amount'. It was simply a fine for committing offences to society, in fact they really had little to do with religion.
@Aristippus: Well, I think we'll have to disagree on certain points regarding the Church.
Now you bring up an exception and argue that the Catholic religion does in fact cause wars!!
It seems to me that you distinguish between the beliefs of Catholics and the central organization that administers the Catholic Church (the Church of Rome, now seated in the Vatican). So, clearly you can see it is possible for "the Catholic religion" (the beliefs of Catholics) to be pious while Rome itself is corrupt. This was the central contention of the Protestant Reformers and it certainly resonated with people.
In fact, Luther was not a separatist even as a late as the nailing of the 95 Theses. I think it was really the nobles, such as Prince Frederick, who took what was really a pretty arcane theological dispute and turned it into a power gambit against Rome. I think the flames of the Reformation didn't spread without a little help from some friends. I haven't had time to research this thought any further than that so don't expect me to try to back it up.
Any particular state structure of a Papacy is not integral to Catholicism.
But you can't have it both ways. You can't say that Catholicism (and I do mean Roman Catholicism, that is, the Western Church) is not just a core set of beliefs distinct from the paper positions of Rome itself that is responsible for "evolving" those beliefs over time and, at the same time, assert that there is no structure integral to Catholicism. Either Catholicism is what Rome says it is or Catholicism stands on its own apart from Rome.
I'm truly baffled how you can seem to think that the freeing of the market (literally) in religious belief and organization that did, in fact, occur in the Reformation was a net negative. Having seen the negative effects of some strains of Protestantism first-hand, I'm the last to say that Protestantism was in every way an improvement over Catholicism but there is nothing positive about the territorial monopoly on religion that was operated by the Catholics (granted, only by virtue of the assistance of the various monarchs of Europe) or later by the Protestants. But at least in the case of Protestant religious monopolies, there was a "de-globalization" which I see as positive. If you hated the Calvinists, you at least had the possibility you might be able to move to a Catholic or Lutheran nation, still in Europe. Before the Reformation, if you didn't like the religion, you had to leave the continent.
In fact, Luther was not a separatist even as a late as the nailing of the 95 Theses.
That doesn't matter though. The point was that the Reformation movement rejected the human for the purely divine. Let's say it remained a particular Catholic order. I would still think it's missing the point.
But you can't have it both ways.
I'm not having it both ways. I'm saying that because it evolves, there is no particular historical structure that is integral to Catholicism.
the freeing of the market (literally) in religious belief
How was it literally freeing the market? All that happened was that the state took over whatever powers the Church had, and then was able to add more since it had greater power than either the state or the church had beforehand. That, as one example, is a reason why it was a net negative. In addition to that, the ideas and worldview that it promoted, as well as the shift in the focus of religious institutions, led via Enlightenment statolatry to the statolatry of today, which prevents society from undoing the growth of the state.
territorial monopoly on religion
What does that mean? Even before the Reformation, different aspects of the religion could be emphasised and offerred, leading to the evolution in societal mores. As you said yourself, Luther's movement need not have resulted in the splintering of the Church. In terms of the use of force, the Church was in competition with various state and non-state institutions, as I noted earlier. Eliminating the Church from this competition was one means by which the states were able to create their monopoly on law-making.
This isn't even to mention the millions of people who died and the enormous destruction caused by the religious wars that followed (which most certainly cannot be just blamed on Catholicism).
The point was that the Reformation movement rejected the human for the purely divine. Let's say it remained a particular Catholic order. I would still think it's missing the point.
Yes, that's a negative. But it also rejected clerical intercession with God for direct individual contact with God. No more did you need the Church's forgiveness (as you note, the logical basis of the Indulgences), you could obtain forgiveness from God directly on your own behalf. While the whole concept of being sinful is anti-humanist in the first place, the Protestant view is an improvement when viewed from the perspective of its conduciveness to human liberty (all the conditions for self-determination reside within the self).
I'm saying that because it evolves, there is no particular historical structure that is integral to Catholicism.
OK, then I think you're equivocating. The Roman cult is unambiguous in their auto-biographical history. The church of Rome was founded by Peter - the first Pope - in Jerusalem and later relocated to Rome where it became the Church of Rome, that is, the Roman Catholic (Universal) Church. There has been an unbroken succession of Popes from Peter down to Benedict XVI and the organization ruled over by each of these Popes has been the same Church as that mentioned in Roman dogma that, "There is no salvation outside the Church." I see no wiggle room here for an "evolving organization" with "no particular historical structure." Sure, there weren't arch-bishops and cardinals at the time of Peter but he was the leader of the only Church authorized by the Son of God when He departed from Earth almost 2000 years ago.
*shrug - I'm really struggling to see how your view of the Church can follow at all from purely humanistic perspective. There is no reason to suppose that opposition to the State's oppressions - a function that the Church performed whenever it suited its own purposes - can only be effective or even is most effective when centralized into a single organization.
But the religious wars - as I have been claiming in this thread and which you hinted above you may agree with - were not started by religion, whether Protestant or Catholic. War often involves a particular kind of mania or panic and while that mania can arise in very sporadic instances without centralized organization, for the most part, any example of intense, organized war sentiment is always the result of centralized direction. It is always the Generals and monarchs (or Generals, Presidents and the behind-the-scenes-Elites today) who are responsible for this.
Whenever it is useful to the ends of propaganda, the war-mongers shrewdly appeal to the religious beliefs of the public but it is a signal mistake, in my view, to say that religion causes war, in any sense. Anyone who really understands the differences between the Roman and Greek churches or the Protestants should understand that there's literally nothing there to come to arms over, even if some of the less articulate have occasionally come to fists.
(all the conditions for self-determination reside within the self)
Nope, according to the doctrine they come from God only. At least in Catholicism, human institutions are of great importance.
The Roman cult is unambiguous in their auto-biographical history.
Yes and the organisation and doctrines of the Church have changed many, many times in that history. That's all I was talking about.
There is no reason to suppose that opposition to the State's oppressions - a function that the Church performed whenever it suited its own purposes - can only be effective or even is most effective when centralized into a single organization.
I'm not supposing that at all. I'm talking about the specific historical circumstances and the anti-humanism of Protestantism vs. the humanism of Catholicism.
But the religious wars - as I have been claiming in this thread and which you hinted above you may agree with - were not started by religion, whether Protestant or Catholic.
Yeah, I was talking about the historical consequences of the Reformation.
Clayton, in addition to the points I raise and questions I ask above (which you have yet to address), I found this to be quite appropriate, as it flies directly in the face of your claims about religion "not entailing the use or threat of violence"...
Sam Harris: What happens if you really follow the bible
And just for fun measure:
And to your point about "voluntary", I found this to be quite relevant...
(From TomWoods.com):
“The State is not force alone,” said H.L. Mencken. ”It depends upon the credulity of man quite as much as upon his docility. Its aim is not merely to make him obey, but also to make him want to obey.”
Thanks to Sam Geoghegan for this quotation, which I had never seen before. Rothbard cites it, I’ve since discovered.
The underlying nature of religion is not the same as the State at all. I do not understand where this conflation of religion and State arises. The State is the agent of legitimate aggression in society. What does religion have to do with aggression? You get beat up if you don't attend church? You are defrauded when you put cash in the offering plate?
And King and country and so on. War infuses the entire culture and it is a canard to blame it all on religion.
From the point of view of praxeology, the telos of Wal-Mart and the Vatican are the same.
For the vast, vast majority of the case, yes. The Mayans or ancient worshippers of Molech are exceptions, of course. And wherever a religion has become enfolded into the State by virtue of State-compelled attendance and "donation", it is no longer a harmless entity... but neither is it "just religion" anymore, it's a State-religion. This is like the difference between the Reich's Krupp Steel versus, say, US Steel. Fascist, state-owned steel corporations are no longer "just steel producers", they are an organ of the State itself.
5) You talk of "role of religion in free society", as if "religion" is a necessary condition for such a society...do you believe that is the case?
I'll say it this way: religion is a necessary symptom of a free society for the same reason toothpaste is a necessary symptom of a free society - there exists an inherent demand for both and only in an oppressive society would its production be suppressed.
(Unless of course you wish to stick with your definition of "religion" as "people who are voluntarily seeking advice and guidance from other people who are recognized for their wisdom and insight". In that case, I'm not sure there will be much more to talk about, as when a couple of kids asking their grandfather how to construct a good slingshot becomes a perfect example of "religion", I'm afraid I don't really have much more interest in persuing the line of conversation.
I already explained the difference - advice in the sense of seeking guidance from someone who specializes in giving advice for difficult situations. This is not the only role of religion but I think it's a good counterpoint definition to the Reason-crowd's caricature that religion = superstition.
Well, that's clearly not the case. But the problem isn't just being pro- or anti-liberty, it's much too complex to be reduced to such simplifications. The State is an imperialist, it divides and conquers through isolation or it joins and conquers through internal strife. A political map also showing tribal boundaries in colonial Africa is a picture-book lesson in the art of imperial subjugation.
@JJ: I don't disagree with anything Sam Harris says. I can give more examples off the top of my head than he gave in that segment. So what? 50 Cent's lyrics also entail the use of violence in precisely the same sense. So what? The point is that beliefs and advocacy are merely words and thoughts. It is only behavior that can be aggressive, that is, behavior that is fraudulent or an initiation of violence.
Clayton:The underlying nature of religion is not the same as the State at all. I do not understand where this conflation of religion and State arises.
You just quoted it: "the underlying nature of religion is the same as the State in that it is inclined to the play the same role the State does of dictating your life..."
The State is the agent of legitimate aggression in society.
And religion doesn't legitimize aggression? That's certainly a new one.
What does religion have to do with aggression? You get beat up if you don't attend church? You are defrauded when you put cash in the offering plate?
Seriously? No, seriously?
it is a canard to blame it all on religion.
I honestly thought straw men were beneath you...but given how many times you've invoked this fallacy in this discussion alone, evidently I was wrong.
I already explained the difference - advice in the sense of seeking guidance from someone who specializes in giving advice for difficult situations.
Okay, so just pretend the children's grandfather is a psychiatrist. Now it's religion when they go to him for instruction on their slingshot construction? Or do they need to ask him for emotional or spiritual advice? Then the therapy session qualifies as religion?
Also, by what metric does one determine a religion is "quack"?
Clayton:@JJ: I don't disagree with anything Sam Harris says. I can give more examples off the top of my head than he gave in that segment. So what? 50 Cent's lyrics also entail the use of violence in precisely the same sense. So what? The point is that beliefs and advocacy are merely words and thoughts. It is only behavior that can be aggressive, that is, behavior that is fraudulent or an initiation of violence.
"so what"? He literally contradicts the very core of your premise, citing specific examples (of which you claim you could offer even more.)
Your whole claim is that religion "does not entail the use or threat of violence". Obviously it does. You straw man the point by posing false scenarios (e.g.
"you suggesting they tithe because the preacher has a gun in their ribs?"
"You get beat up if you don't attend church? You are defrauded when you put cash in the offering plate?")
And yet here, when you are presented with actual (and more severe) examples of religion entailing the use of violence, your response is "so what". So it would seem your statement upon which it seems a great deal of your notion of religion is built, is wrong. That's what.
You're missing the point. In my view, there are two levels at operation in religious belief. The first is the "surface-level", that is, the simple import of the beliefs-as-they-are, for example, Sola Fide (works don't matter, it's all up to God). But then, there is a slightly deeper level which is psychological, that is, the net effect of the beliefs and behaviors of a particular religion on the psyche of the individual.
The presence/absence of the sacrament of confession, for example, is a perfect example of this. Theologically, the debate over the validity of confession is arcane stuff; eye-wateringly boring. But its effects are profound. I'm throwing this out there because it's such a complicated one in terms of its net benefits/costs to the individual. On one level, I think the absence of confessional is a net negative to mainline Protestants vis-a-vis Catholics. There's something deeply cathartic about getting stuff "off your chest" in a safe, unconditionally non-judgmental environment. But on another level, you see how the same concept can be abused as in the Mormon or Scientological versions of it - and it is impossible to believe that it is never used for surveillance within the Roman church, as well.
At the deeper level, I believe Catholicism encourages a feeling of isolation or distance from God (the Ultimate/Absolute), which weakens the will in the sense that it says, psychologically, "there is always a layer of insulation between your will and its effects on the Universe (God)". You may try to act, but only if your attempts are consistent with the Earthly institutions, that is, the status quo, will they be able to have any effect in the world. It is the job of God's Earthly institution (the Church) to act as a proxy for God (the vicarious role of the Pope) and to intercede on the behalf of the individual to God.
Protestantism eliminates this and says the individual may directly appeal to God without any Earthly intermediaries. This is an improvement vis-a-vis the psychological implications to acting. The individual who acts directly on the Universe itself does so without second-guessing or waiting for approval. The individual who must submit his plans and proposals for review to an Earthly intermediary before they are passed along to the Universe is lethargic by comparison.
But, in the end, both Protestantism and Catholicism are built on a rotten foundation - the Bible. This is why we need to return - really return this time - to the Ancients. The blue-sky metaphysics of the Greeks, the suppressed religious traditions of Europe, the Middle East, Asia, etc. the astrological, pagan and pantheistic religions of yore are all a rich source of ancient-yet-fresh ideas that are not wholly disconnected from the corpus of cultural knolwedge about human nature acquired over the millenia, unlike invented religions such as Mormonism or Scient0logy. I disagree that the RCC even comes close to satisfying the ideals I have in mind when discussing the possibility of a modern religious reformation.
@JJ: Well, let's assume that the Biblical records of Leviticus are authentic records of Mosaic law, as practiced by the ancient Israelites for centuries. In that case, we can simply note that the culture itself was frankly aggressive. It was a society infused with aggression. Until they had a King, these laws couldn't have been said to have been the result of the State because there simply wasn't a State. Which leaves open the question of who administered the business of murdering people left and right without consequence. The judges? They had no power to comple anything, they were pretty much like the free-market arbitrators we talk about on these forums. The priests? Well, until the Kingship was established, the priests had zero earthly authority and were simply administrators of the temples or high-places of their respective deity (yes, there were more than one during the time period in Palestine that the Old Testament supposedly documents). There's a lot of missing or wrong information in the Pentateuch, a point which Sam Harris himself would agree with.
Your whole claim is that religion "does not entail the use or threat of violence". Obviously it does. You straw man the point by posing false scenarios (e.g. "you suggesting they tithe because the preacher has a gun in their ribs?" "You get beat up if you don't attend church? You are defrauded when you put cash in the offering plate?") And yet here, when you are presented with actual (and more severe) examples of religion entailing the use of violence, your response is "so what". So it would seem your statement upon which it seems a great deal of your notion of religion is built, is wrong. That's what.
A book with a record of vicious laws is not aggressive. The Inquisition was aggressive. Yet we can show, historically, the connection between the State (the universal agent of aggression) and the Inquisition. Harris's inferences regarding stoning disobedient children to death are not indications that he believes that this is a historical record of life as it really was in Palestine circa 1000BC, rather, he is addressing his points to fundamentalists in order to challenge their belief that this is a historical record of life as it really was in Palestine circa 1000BC. That's glaringly obvious.
Clayton:let's assume that the Biblical records of Leviticus are authentic records of Mosaic law, as practiced by the ancient Israelites for centuries.
...you're suggesting the Bible is flawed? Blasphemy.
In that case, we can simply note that the culture itself was frankly aggressive.
So you're saying it's not that the word of God dictates aggression...it's that the people themselves were "frankly aggressive", so their religius books reflected that? Again that sounds like you're suggesting the Pentateuch is not only flawed, but here it even sounds like you're suggesting it's not even the word of God...
It was a society infused with aggression.
...and of course being so focused on the religious following of the aggressive word of God had absolutely nothing to do with that.
There's a lot of missing or wrong information in the Pentateuch, a point which Sam Harris himself would agree with.
Could you offer some examples of what exactly is "missing" or "wrong" about those books? Also, a reference for Sam Harris saying such would be great.
Harris's inferences regarding stoning disobedient children to death are not indications that he believes that this is a historical record of life as it really was in Palestine circa 1000BC, rather, he is addressing his points to fundamentalists in order to challenge their belief that this is a historical record of life as it really was in Palestine circa 1000BC. That's glaringly obvious.
What? Did we watch the same clip? He literally says how the Bible is so sadistic that "not even an orthodox Christian or fundamentalist Jew can take God at his word"...that "we have effectively edited the Bible...even fundamentalists have."
His entire point in that clip is to illustrate that the dictates contained in "the word of God" are so sadistic that if they were followed, happiness would basically be impossible...so that we have essentially disregarded those parts of the holy books. And not only that, but this has been done without even condemning those dictates as "immoral". He's trying to show the inconsistencies and the contradictions perpetuated in religion itself.
I am quite astounded that you could watch Harris say all this and instead interpret it to mean that he's simply trying to convince fundamentalists that the Bible isn't an accurate historical record. I honestly have no idea how you come up with this.
Getting back to the point, I'll quote him directly:
"...this idea that without religion, something fundamental would be lost to us..."
[sounds a lot like something you would say.]
"[Leviticus] paints a vision of life so needlessly horrible — so subversive of the basic project of creating a sustainable society where human happiness is even possible."
[Here it sounds like he's directly contradicting your notion of religion and its role in society...where you state it is a necessary symptom he's pointing out how it's dictates promote the exact opposite.]
"You find that a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, you stone her to death. You stone homosexuals to death. If your kids talk back to you, you stone them to death. You go into a town and you see someone praying to a foreign god, you kill him, you kill his family, you kill everyone in the town. These are not metaphores, these are not analogies for some spiritual struggle within...these are explicit directives to kill people for theological crimes."
He goes on and on. He speaks on the Inquisition and killing people for thought crimes. It's like that clip was made specifically for you, to refute your underlying premise here. A major part of your entire position is that religion "does not entail the use or threat of violence". When presented with examples directly contradicting this, you even admit: "Until they had a King, these laws couldn't have been said to have been the result of the State because there simply wasn't a State." So you've basically conceded the point...that this violence is not only religiously based, but can't even be blamed on your fallback scapegoat "State-infused religion".
I honestly have no idea where you think your position here remains standing.
But then, there is a slightly deeper level which is psychological, that is, the net effect of the beliefs and behaviors of a particular religion on the psyche of the individual.
Well, I disagree with your psychological assessment.
his is why we need to return - really return this time - to the Ancients.
The Ancients whom the Catholics promoted and the Protestants rejected? Oh ok.
I disagree that the RCC even comes close to satisfying the ideals I have in mind when discussing the possibility of a modern religious reformation.
A century ago it might have been an option, but today it has taken huge influences from Protestantism, modernism, and Marxism. So I agree that there isn't much use trying to revive it.
And not only is it not the word of God but it's of no use whatsoever, not even to indict an ancient culture that is, as far as we know, completely ahistorical. The picture of the Israelites painted in the Hebrew Scriptures is deeply incongruous with any picture of human culture in that region around that time that can be painted from any other source, historical, archaeological, anthropological, etc. This is a central contention of skepticism since at least the time of the Higher Criticism.
See above.
I'm inferring this from the fact that Sam Harris is a skeptic and that all skeptics I'm aware of reject outright the historicity of the Bible.
Problems with the Bible start with no mention of the Israelites (who were supposedly a very powerful kingdom) by the Egyptians or other contemporary cultures. Are they a complete fabrication? I don't know. Then there are the textual problems. The entire subject became an area of academic study in Germany in the 19th century.
He's trying to show the inconsistencies and the contradictions perpetuated in religion itself.
One of which is the inconsistency of even attributing factuality to the historical narratives in the Bible in the first place.
That's not what I said. His point is what you described it to be. My point is that Harris does not himself hold the Herbew Bible to be a historical record so he is not making factual assertions about life under religious extremism, he is making counter-factual assertions about life under religious extremism. "If the Bible is true, then ....." but, of course, the Bible isn't true.
"...this idea that without religion, something fundamental would be lost to us..." [sounds a lot like something you would say.]
Yes, I and I do disagree with Harris on this point not only in this lecture but in other lectures of his. I think he is generally uncareful in his definitions - like you - and plays fast and loose with the word "religion", at times equating it with superstition, at other times equating it with specific, historical religions and at other time using it in its broadest possible sense (religion-in-the-abstract). His points as they relate to debunking fundamentalism certainly stand on their merits but as they relate to making the case for a religion-free future, I think they are very hollow and not well thought out.
"[Leviticus] paints a vision of life so needlessly horrible — so subversive of the basic project of creating a sustainable society where human happiness is even possible." [Here it sounds like he's directly contradicting your notion of religion and its role in society...where you state it is a necessary symptom he's pointing out how it's dictates promote the exact opposite.]
Where have I ever espoused Leviticus??
"You find that a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, you stone her to death. You stone homosexuals to death. If your kids talk back to you, you stone them to death. You go into a town and you see someone praying to a foreign god, you kill him, you kill his family, you kill everyone in the town. These are not metaphores, these are not analogies for some spiritual struggle within...these are explicit directives to kill people for theological crimes." He goes on and on. He speaks on the Inquisition and killing people for thought crimes. It's like that clip was made specifically for you, to refute your underlying premise here. A major part of your entire position is that religion "does not entail the use or threat of violence".
He goes on and on. He speaks on the Inquisition and killing people for thought crimes. It's like that clip was made specifically for you, to refute your underlying premise here. A major part of your entire position is that religion "does not entail the use or threat of violence".
It does not necessarily entail violence. I've already mentioned the Mayans and and worshippers of Molech as ilustrative exceptions, so of course it is not the case that religion does not ever entail violence. Rockefeller really did use hired guns to break strikes so I guess that means that the oil industry entails the use of violence, doesn't it?
When presented with examples directly contradicting this, you even admit: "Until they had a King, these laws couldn't have been said to have been the result of the State because there simply wasn't a State." So you've basically conceded the point...that this violence is not only religiously based, but can't even be blamed on your fallback scapegoat "State-infused religion". I honestly have no idea where you think your position here remains standing.
The point is that the Biblical record just doesn't make sense and that's a good hint that it's simply false, that is, fabricated.
So I agree that there isn't much use trying to revive it.
For my own clarification, can you give me any hints as to where you are coming from, philosophically, overall? You say "So" as in because the Church has been corrupted from what it was before - by the influences of Protestantism - therefore, there isn't much use in trying to revive it.
Are you coming to this assessment from a purely humanistic point-of-view? That is, do you think that the Catholic church before circa 1800 just happened to be the "best recipe" ever discovered for preserving/maintaining/propagating humanistic values? And that this can be seen from purely a humanistic starting point (i.e. without attributing any authenticity to the Church's claims of divine favor and uniqueness?) If so, that is a view I've not encountered before.
No, I don't think it was the best recipe ever discovered. But it was established and already recognised by many as a beneficial social institution (and yes, it was also better than it is today overall). At that time, then, it was possibly the best existing means of propagating and upholding the values of traditional morality and the Golden Rule - but this doesn't mean that it was the best possible or that it is necessarily the best today. Neither of the latter are true in my opinion.
Neither of the latter are true in my opinion.
Interesting. What are your thoughts on the Great Schism? I've read about the Byzantine church a bit and I think there are a lot of aspects of their theology that are superior to the Western church, not only in terms of their psychological implications but even when taken at face value. For example, apophatic theology is much more akin to something you might find in the Tao Te Ching or some Buddhist texts in terms of the approach to describing the attributes of God. To say it another way, I'm certain that the God described by the Western church does not exist but I really can't say the same thing about the God (god?) described by the Eastern church. Unlike Protestantism, the Eastern church retains all the attributes of Catholicism that you have mentioned here as net positives vis-a-vis Protestantism. Thoughts?
You're likely right. I was focusing on the western half of the Schism, but the Eastern Church might be a better institution than Roman Catholicism in terms of what we were discussing, especially since it has probably preserved its traditions to a much greater degree than the Western Church has. Also, it has a much smaller political significance than does the Catholic church of today (while in the Middle Ages, the Patriarch of Constantinople was perhaps more influenced by political circumstances than even the Pope). I'll look into it further.
The Great Schism itself was much more a result of politics than was the Reformation.