I think the fact that the ancient world was characterized by polytheism goes a long ways to explaining why empires and modern super-states have arisen at the time in human history when they did. Every ancient empire - Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, and so on, has been characterized by the imposition of a religious and cultural hegemony. The people in subjugated nations who "jumped ship" and joined the religion of their conquerors became the local governors for the imperial powers.
I'll disagree. That can be countered with Ancient Greece, Iranians (both of the Monotheistic and Polytheistic variety), much of the pre late Bronze Age Mediterranean Semites (of the polytheistic, and monotheistic/henotheistic variety), and late Neolithic/ early Bronze age Eastern Semites. It is easier to make a correlation to: increased contact and trade routes, domestication and irrigation of land, humans somewhat natural design to form into hierarchies, Increased mobility to travel (wheel, horses, ships, etc), the nature of rivers in earlier times, and the nature of nomads/barbarians to civilized people at the time. All of these things have a much more plausible explanation than "religion" (whatever the hell that term means) or polytheism. If they did help instigate empires, they were at best a secondary or tertiary byproduct.
Besides that State superstructures and politics is largely a result of Enlightenment nonsense; not the Persian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or anything of the sort. They were totally different constructs and should be compared with the utmost caution.
There is a really bad habit here by some people to attach Rothbard to anything they don't agree with. It is disrespectful and it usually, in almost every case, reveals a certain level of ignorance.
My apologies. The way you alluded to your view of property rights, i was simply thinking you followed his. Even if you do, I think it is mostly spot on.
Censorship is a problem of government ownership and not private property?
reedom of religion, maybe... But certainly not private property. The former is useless without the latter, for now the State must approve of what constitutes a "religion"
You can see where I made my mistake, I think
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
It is easier to make a correlation to: increased contact and trade routes, domestication and irrigation of land, humans somewhat natural design to form into hierarchies, Increased mobility to travel (wheel, horses, ships, etc), the nature of rivers in earlier times, and the nature of nomads/barbarians to civilized people at the time.
Ya, the religions had been around for a while before the civs. The role religion played was that many/most cities developed around a shrine, and the shaman developed into priests. The priests became both religous leader and beauracrat for grain distribution, trade/legal disputes, and scribery. But the political leaders were usually family heads/chiefs which developed into kings.
Also, to clear up some loose ends. The Achaemenid dynasty (Persia) was monotheistic (though it can be argued that at certain times certain aspects were not), however it was for the most part "secular", as in there isn't much evidence Zoroastrianism was imposed on the conquered nations (and the Persian Empire was huge). The Egyptians and Macedonian/ "Greeks", Romans, Carthaginians, or even the Judeans showed no signs of imposing gods (they were more content to identify their gods with other various gods, or mix mythologies, etc) or their practices on people outside of their culture. When empires started to form, there is no consistent evidence of imposing gods (and the recognizing of an Emperor as god in for example Ancient Rome, was more of a formality that no one really believed).
The secular myth of religious disagreement as the root of all violence is ultimately in the interests of the monotheists... wouldn't the elimination of all but one religion make religious disagreement (and therefore, violence due to such disagreements) impossible?
I think you are confusing monotheism vs polytheism with creedal vs non creedal spirtuality/ life. And even if that is the case, it would depend on the creed and the relationship of the believer to the creed and the world around him. Once again various forms of Christianity, most forms of Judaism, and almost any known form of Zoroastrianism (some debate about the Sassnid era) this would be a non issue, as it is more of a matter between the individual and his actions within the world than governing bodies and politics that is the concern for some monotheists. For a famous example, read Kierkegaard. I can't speak much for Islam, as I am fairly ignorant of the faith.
To sum up; I disagree it is neither in the interestsor against the interest of monotheism, polytheism, creedal, or non creedal faiths; as that is too broad a term to use.
But the Church, especially in the West, has often been the handmaiden of the State. There is an unmistakable resemblance between the omnimax God of orthodox Christian theology and the Leviathan of Hobbes. Both are all-seeing, all-knowing and ever-present. Monotheism - when mixed with State force - becomes a territorial monopoly of deity worship. It is easy to see how the interests of the producers of devotional services (religion/church) dovetail as nicely with the monopolizing powers of the State as the interests of producers in any other industry (law, security, etc.)
Well, I think the use of the word "Church" is once again way to broad to carry much meaning. Anyway you cut it if you look at the 3 major Eastern Churches, Protestantism, or Catholocism you are going to get very bipolar results for all 3 groups. It's a complex term and in complex usage even within its own specific brands of Christianity. If you just want to look at "Church" as some generic political entity and refuse to study its theology, you are essentially just playing th game of modern mass politics and detrimental broad catagorization.
If you are saying the theology doesn't matter and all that matters is that there is an institution that subsidizes government expansion, than I would say that is also the case with capitalism. As places where capitalism has developed, communism and democracy wasn't fr behind. Likewise, I could say that running on pro market issues has produced good results for the Republican Party, yet I would hardly call most Republicans "pro market". The name "freedom" has been used in a plethora of often contradictory terms, from communists to fascists to progressives to libertarians and many times in its name it produces horrid results. Yet are you to care about "freedom" as a term or how it functions in politics?
Also, if you wish to make the hypotheses that Western monotheism is the "handmaiden of the state", you are going to have to adress the issue that it is in these monotheistic nations that has produced the most coherent thoughts on the libertarian definitions of "freedom", "decentralization", "capitalism", "human rights", suspicion of government, etc. This is a fact that can not be ignored.
EDIT: LAST SECTION
This is a somewhat the basic template, but I'm not too sure how uniform even this was. Of the late neolithic/ early bronze age period I can say little without checking my records. But when you forward after/ during the "Bronze Age crash" and look at "Dark Age" Greece/Etruscan/Carthaginian/Latin religous customs, they seem to be quite informal, and quite "unscribe like". I think the Iranians may have been a bit different too, but am unsure at the moment.
Likewise the Levites could be seen as a bit different, and it would appear often times at odds with the state. As most Levites were simply citizen/ priests that served only a few times a year. The priestly cast was divided into many functions, but I think (off the top of my head) they were almost exclusively religious (even the scribes), but I could be wrong on that.
This is a somewhat the basic template, but I'm not too sure how uniform even this was. Of the late neolithic/ early bronze age period I can say little without checking my records. But when you forward after/ during the "Bronze Age crash" and look at "Dark Age" Greece/Etruscan/Carthaginian/Latin religous customs, they seem to be quite informal, and quite "unscribe like"
Ya, I was mainly coming from a mesopotamian perspective as it is the oldest (known). Im not even sure Egypt developed like this, or not that we know. In mesopotamia and at least parts of persia it is a range of either settlements around religous structures.. you have to think of it as around 1000 nomadic people (the tribe) slowly making their summer/winter home their permanent home over a few hundred years as they perfect aggriculture further and further, and concurrently astronomy which feeds back to religion... or the earliest known building will be a wall and a tower. If I remember correctly there are far less defensive cities than others tho.
The people of meso/egypt were trading as far away as england and india, So, I think the other cultures gained the advantage of technology through that and had no need of a formal state system until later attempted conquests by say the persians in greece or rome in northern and eastern europe.
Carthage is an anomally so far out there... I really don't know very much about them until the first punic war.
They aren't really an anomoly when you think of them as nothing more than an extension of Phoencia. Those were all just Phoenician outposts for a time, as the Phoenicians were the traders par excellence for quite some time. They were the most inovative in shipbuilding, communication (alphabet), trading, and currency (they may have set up a bronze age "silver standard"), Carthage was the heir once Tyre went down to Assyria. Unfortunatley Rome destroyed Carthage and Alexander destroyed Tyre (and also Persepolis) so completley and utterly much of the records were lost. One of my bigger pet peeves in history is the dramatic loss of Phoenician/ Carthaginian records.
This only goes to show that massive idiocy, destruction, and barbarism even from thousands of years ago can still have a tragic effect today (or as some fools like to call it "great men, great generals, and change").
You can still open a school and operate it as you see fit, you just can't be an accredited school, meaning your degrees will be worth only the paper they are written on.
The sole purpose of accreditation is to determine whether you go to jail for not attending. No relation whatsoever with the diploma.
Good call, I think to really drive home the point it ought be stated that civilization would start in the Meopotamian region and spread outword. The last places to recieve civilization (such as Western Europe) were the more remote places from the trade routes. Those places that were isolated (subsahrah africa, Oceania, etc) were to lag behind and remain comparatively decentralized with less divisions of labor. Centralization, civilization, more organized forms of worship, etc can be directly tied to sendentary life and a growth in communication (which includes trade an war) between more humans.
This can be shown with a kind of "in between" on the S. American / Central American landmass where you have slower growth than the N African Eurasian landmass but higher growth than the more isolated and less populated land masses. You also end up with more organized forms of worship than the more isolated area. It was an increase in communication and interaction (perpetuated by non nomadic life) that lead to the rise of states (and more organized forms of worship). While this may sound bad for libertarians, it isn't....it is also communication and interaction that can keep the civilization and wealth maximization while shrinking the state to hopefully nothing.
At the risk of spamming this topic:
As for Islam: I think you have to have a universal standard. It's irrelevant how old their culture is. Or if it is a religion at all. Do they threaten to initiate force in order to 'live the way they want'? The same standard for them should apply to one people regularly apply to the US government or their fellow citizens. Since ethics apply to people, not to Muslims or governments or this group or that. It just so happens that these are all people with different hats or costumes or whatever; but people all the same.
So it's OK for me to judge Islam by secular human, scientific, anarchist, reason, libertarian, or freedom standards; but Islam is assbackwards if it judges you by theocratic or Islamic standards? Am I to judge someone or something as to how they relate to anarchism and who is a "good anarchist", who is a "bad anarchist", or by reason on who is "a good reasonable person", who is a "bad reasonable person"? Sounds like just as big of a spook to me.
What, who's, and why does universal standard apply? I am unique, perfect, and ever changing and we are all mutants. Am I to judge things by freedom's universal standard or my own? Who owns who here? Once again "people" is just as much, if not more of a barbaric ghost in the machinary as well.
Let reason concern itself with reason, let Islam concern itself with Islam, let freedom concern itself with freedom, let good concern itself with good, let man concern itself with man, justice with justice, anarchy with anarchy; they do a fine enough job on caring for their own causes and have an admirable enough time of it when they recieve their sacred devotions and services from people.
As for me:
"Ich hab Mein Sach auf Nichts gestellt"
It was an increase in communication and interaction (perpetuated by non nomadic life) that lead to the rise of states (and more organized forms of worship). While this may sound bad for libertarians, it isn't....it is also communication and interaction that can keep the civilization and wealth maximization while shrinking the state to hopefully nothing.
Bruce Lee once said about the martial arts (and Im paraphrasing) "when I started out in the martial arts I thought a punch was just a punch, and a kick just kick. As I started to study it, I realized it was so much more than that. A punch could be a jab, a cross, or a hook. It requires timing, force, and economy of motion. It was so much more. As I began to master the martial arts, whatever that means, I further realized that a punch was just a punch, and a kick was just a kick."
I think the same thing will happen with society. In the beginning we were stateless, and everybody just knew what the rules were. Society was just society. Then we created governemental and economic systems, religous philosophies, scientific/educational institutions, and society benefited greatly from this. Over the last 500 years we have started to come back to the idea that people should be deemed fit to live their own lives (even communism was just a misguided attempt to "free" the working people, but it thought it could dictate freedom).
The only thing holding us back now is our attitude.
@Dondoolee: My thoughts on the subject are not fully formed so I'm not prepared to be dogmatic about them. Nevertheless, I think you are oversimplifying my position a bit. I am not arguing that a transition from polytheism to monotheism is causal of political agglomeration or that political agglomeration has always resulted in religious hegemony. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that there are far fewer religions on the face of the Earth today than there were 2,000 years ago* and this trajectory of religious consolidation has been accelerating. We also see a decrease in the number of spoken languages, decrease in cultural variety and massive increase in political agglomeration. I am being careful not to draw causal relationships but the correlation is unmistakable.
Clayton -
*Where "religion" is defined sufficiently narrowly that religious denominations are not considered as their own religions
Please be careful when cutting my quotes. I've been posting on internet forums for more than a decade and I typically choose my words very carefully, so it's important to include all the relevant words. I did not say Western monotheism is the handmaiden of the State, I said, "... the Church, especially in the West, has often been the handmaiden of the State." This is uncontroversial. Eastern monotheism (Islam) has been every bit as much the handmaiden of the State (Ottoman Empire).
My view of religion is that it tends to be a reflection of culture. Violent cultures typically have violent religions. You can argue till kingdom come which causes which but I think it's irrelevant... religion is part of culture, a reflective part. The West has been the epicenter of the rise of the modern, total State... the absolute, territorial monopolist of law, security and everything else which can be monopolized. My point is this: let's not forget that the Catholic Church in the West pioneered territorial religious monopoly on a grand scale. Sure, in the past, if you lived in one territory it might get you killed to worship the wrong deity. But prior to the fusion of church and State initiated by Constantine, never had a territorial religious monopoly been so wide in its extent or absolute in its purity.
My bad, I should have been clear, I did that on purpose. I thought by you pointing out the West you wished to focus on it. I also assume most people I talk to know less and are less interested in Eastern history than I am. I deliberately dumped other references to try to zero in on a more concise example that would be easier for us to not "talk past" each other, and I thought you were trying to do the same by saying "especially in the West".
That said I want to point out that Eastern monotheism is far from just Islam in a modern context or from an historical view (there are MANY Christians, Baha'i, Zoroastrians, Jews, Manicheans, Neo-Platonist, I suppose Egypt went henotheist for a bit, as well as many Gnostic sects). That, and I want to make absolutely certain you are not wanting to aim analysis on creedal vs non creedal religious practices.
My main point is that the term "Church" is too broad a term and upon analysis you are going to get an inconsistent schizophrenic view of "Church" perpetuating or not perpetuating the state. I am also claiming that such an analysis comes from the black hole that was the self-named "Enlightenment" era where they came up with thier fun little theories of history and broad categorizations from a void (see German Bible School criticism, Whig Theory of History, the name "The Dark Ages", etc) and then said what good little boys they were in "The Age of Reason", which can alos be tied with mass politics.
The West has been the epicenter of the rise of the modern, total State... the absolute, territorial monopolist of law, security and everything else which can be monopolized.
To once again show the bipolarness of the broad categorizations: The modern West has also been the epicenter of the values you probably hold most dear (peace, freedom, property, individualism, etc), I do not think this can be argued. Furthermore, I am prepared to affirm that Christian sentiment has something to do with it. Furthermore, to stress even more the bipolarness of the position, much of this came out of the Enlightenment which owes its debt to Christianity, but was a deliberate secular movement which all the while was also the cause of the rise of total state and madness. Governments that adopted most dramatically the Western views of the total state were quite secular (Revolutionary France, China and Russia). Crazy stuff.
Sure, in the past, if you lived in one territory it might get you killed to worship the wrong deity. But prior to the fusion of church and State initiated by Constantine, never had a territorial religious monopoly been so wide in its extent or absolute in its purity.
Say what you will about him, Constintine did not fuse Church and state. And even if you don't want to acknowledge that fact, I will again bring up the creedal monotheistic religion of Zoroastrianism during the Achaemenid's dynasty, which was apathetic to other religions, and also Judaism since the time of Solomon to the destruction of its Temple in 70 AD, which was non creedal and henotheistic/monotheistic, and once again apathetic to evangelizing outside of Judea. And then there is the case of the Parthian Empire and Sassanid Empire forms of Zoroastrianism where the nature of the religion went from a loose arrangement to quite the marriage between Church and State, all before Constantine.....
Upon your request, I may be willing to write you an essay with citations addressing these issues:
The assessment of any significant monolithic definition of religion, monotheism, creedism, paganism helping/hurting government can not be made, and is essentially an Enlightenment clap-trap. I will do so by looking at the world of the Byzantines and Iranians from Constantine to the fall of Constantinople. I can show where and why various wars were fought, and where and who did mass killings, where and how centralization took place and what it meant to hold various dogmas of religious custom in various eras at various time. You can pick and choose any or all of those points that you would wish for me to expound on
In it I can focus on Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Manicheasim, Neo-Platonism, what paganism was and where it was at this time, Gnosticism, Judaism, a pinch of Islam, and the meaning and nature of Church, worship, religion, etc.
If I am still missing your main point, or if there are any more points or questions you wished addressed please state them, perhaps I could even address them within the context of the essay I just proposed, if you wish. Or perhaps if you want to set up an outline or guideline for me to follow, let me know.
Of course if you want me to write this essay (and if I still feel like doing it) it may take a bit of time.
@Dondoolee: Well, please understand that I am less ignorant of ecclesiastical history than your average man on the street... I was raised in strict Reformed Baptist* (redundant) churches where I was treated to a heavy dose of (Protestant-centric) church history.
My main point is that the term "Church" is too broad a term and upon analysis you are going to get an inconsistent schizophrenic view of "Church" perpetuating or not perpetuating the state.
I'm not parroting anyone's Enlightenment revision of church history. I think you can come up with a workable definition of distinct religions via voluntary self-affiliation. In other words, if religious group A and religious group B both voluntarily self-affiliate, then they are the same religion for the purposes of the argument I was making.
To back my argument up, I really should hunt down the cite - I think it's Hoppe - where he argues that the increase in the power and prevalence of the State order has correlated with a reduction in cultural variety, the number of languages, and so on. If I can remember where I read/heard this, I will cite it.
*More of the "Sovereign Grace" variety than the historical Particular Baptist variety
The history of religion is irrelevant.
If God exists, immoral acts done in the name of religion can very well be justified. Since the onus is off human convenience or secular ethics.
In addition, one religion cannot very well blame another religion for being bad. Since they both derive knowledge from faith -- that could very well tell them anything. If it's okay to believe things based on faith, a murderer's intuition of God's message is still valid.
Luckily, God doesn't exist. And we shouldn't waste our time with it.
-
Further I don't appeciate always being called a 'militant atheist'. I don't use use force or intimidation. I am merely placing religion into the list of possible areas of discussion with all other topics. It seems like in a libertarian society religious people won't be burnt at the stake. But it's certainly possible that people are going to argue against your beliefs -- and influence people away from your side. And you're not always going to have your headphones on or your hand over your ears.
John Ess:Luckily, God doesn't exist. And we shouldn't waste our time with it.
Didn't we cover this already?
It is not irrelevent if he was trying to correlate a specific doctrine with sociological actions and the consequences of them. It is not irrelevent if he was looking at how an institution was formed and the social ramifications that came out of a specific institution as a particualr time. Anything is or is not irrelevent based on context.
Under the assumptions that such catagorizations as religions actually do and can exist, sure they can. Just as I can blame anyone I want for anything I want, or state how Bach is better than Brittany SPears and claim it to be 100% truth, as I am 100% truth, and I am not joking. Or if you wish, I can will untruth.
But you just did. Besides, I would rather read, and get more "truth" from the Iliad or The Book of John than some boring math or science book. It makes life more fun for me.
I don't use use force or intimidation.
Everything is an act of force, and intimidation is a legal term
But it's certainly possible that people are going to argue against your beliefs
It's also possible that most secular humanists are downright boring and unpleasent to be around, so they could lose by just not being very fun.
"No, I said that you cannot formally distinguish between a hunch and a superstition. Surmising that djinns exist is not so different than surmising that the charm quark exists. Neither can be seen, both should have some effect in the world (djinns have more complex and subtle effects). Superstition is just an expression of human imagination, probably with an evolutionary basis Evolutionary psychologists believe that anthropomorphizing natural events caused people to be more circumspect and thereby more likely to survive surprise attacks. That is, if you ascribe every sound in the forest to an action of the gods or leprechauns, you're likely to be paying more attention when it turns out that a wolf or your enemy is actually responsible for those sounds. This pressure selected for superstition over agnosticism. This argument swiped (and re-worded) from Kanazawa and Miller's book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters.
Of course hunch and superstition are not the same thing... my only claim is that you can't make a formal definition of the difference. Both are instances of arbitrary belief, like axioms. You just believe it because you do. There cannot be any other reason, else it would be a theorem, not a hunch."
I don't know what you mean by formal distinction, then. Can you explain what you mean by this and give an example?
I'm not denying that people evolved imagination (which is more likely than 'superstition' specifically over agnosticism; since many human beings claim agnostic views as well, and they evolved, too). Nor that it is precondition for finding stuff out. Only that there are differences between what people can do with it. Just as there are differences between what they can do with hands or feet, which they've evolved. And some uses have been found out to be more true than others. And it doesn't matter that there is more than one truth or even no absolute truth. Only that truth statements can't contradict themselves or be contradicted by evidence -- and the only way to know is if a coherent methodology with a conclusions that follows from it can be described or it can be shown to be at the very least logically valid.
If this is not the case, you shouldn't be arguing with me. Since we're both right. Or we're both wrong.
Further I don't appeciate always being called a 'militant atheist'. I don't use use force or intimidation. I am merely placing religion into the list of possible areas of discussion with all other topics.
Well I dont know about you...but I know atheists who have advocated have advocated violence against religious believers... Including some who think that religious believers should be locked up as mentally ill.
I do however think the term 'militant atheist' gets thrown around too much.
But it's certainly possible that people are going to argue against your beliefs -- and influence people away from your side. And you're not always going to have your headphones on or your hand over your ears.
I have no problem with people trying to argue against my beliefs, as long as they are somewhat respectful and non-coersive in doing so.
However I would ask that, if you are talking to an indvidual, at least learn a bit about his beliefs before you begin arguing against them. I cant count the number of times I'v had to explain that I accept evolution, reject the doctrine of 'original sin'(at least as its traditionally expressed) and dont believe in a future anti-christ/rapture/tribulation/etc.
And yes....I'll grant the same could be said to many evangelists.
Please do if you can, also make sure and let me know if I am addressing your key point(s), as I am usnsure at the moment.
P.S. I did not mean to sound like I was calling you an Enlightenment parrot, I just enjoy taking a dig at the Enlightenment anytime and any chance I can (it wasn't meant to refect on you)
I would rather read, and get more "truth" from the Iliad or The Book of John than some boring math or science book. It makes life more fun for me.
First off John is a farce, that really doesn't fit in with the other Gospels. It ismy view that the only reason it made it into the Bible was because Jesus says "I am" instead of "you say it is so" when they ask if he is the messiah. BUt this is neither here nor there.
Second, what????? I can gaurantee you there is more truth in the first chapter of that science book than in all of any religous text, or anything else based on conjecture.
I think that depends on what is meant by 'truth.' A science textbook can tell you a lot about physics or whatever, but a religious text(or just a really a great piece of literture) can tell you a lot more about the human condition and how different people approach and deal with it.
I REALLY hate how people have come to equate scientific facts with 'truth'.
I really hate how people think anyone who disagrees with superstition is an atheist...
If it isnt physical, it is subjective. If it is subjective, it isn't true. That is the way I see it. But I guess it all depends on how you define truth. I think leaving truth up to subjectiveness is not only a fallacy, but dangerous.
I said the "Book of John", not the Book of John as it relates to the "Bible" (whatever the hell the term Bible means) in a Xtian (whatever the hell that term means) context, If you can't accept someone liking a Christian text, would it have been better if I would have said I find more truth in Goethe? As it is essentially the same argument. Don't focus on the text I cited, that was ancilliary to my point being made.
I can gaurantee you there is more truth in the first
Lol:
Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια (John 18:38)
I mean the conclusions from this discussion can only be irrelevant. Since religionists can shift the weight to 'truth of God as commander of the universe' that they believe makes Libertarianism or political pragmatism, as here implied as a given, problematic. So it it can only be a waste of time to walk down this avenue expecting two parties to agree. And as I don't believe this myself, but in the meta of the conversation itself, I don't believe I am wasting my time in intervening. A so called 'war on the church' can only be made on the grounds of questioning the objective truth -- and it must be objective since they believe in exists here and not just in their minds; as a valid concept and not just unknowable qualia or feeling -- of the religion's claims themselves.
I don't deny the category of religion exists. And I say that they can't blame each other because they both use the same faith methodology. Neither claims to care about objective truth, until it is time to say the other one is crap. Then they don't care so much about the faith. Then when a philosopher or scientist challenges them, they crawl back in their turtle shell 'faith' again. Or worse: claim both the scientist and themselves are based on faith; but somehow manage to claim themselves the moral victory all the same.
I retract my statement about 'force'. But I think at the very least if people can put forward a belief, then at the very least they can grant equal 'force' to others. And even if my force be greater than theirs, if we belief that a stronger argument is greater force than a weaker one, then we must grant that they themselves believe that they are using more force than I. And in so doing, must grant me the privilege of using a disproportionate amount of force -- in the definition we are using here of force.
I think you are confusing types of truth. Liking ice cream and paintings-enjoyment are both subjective epistemology; you can have all the claim you want to 100 percent truth. Religion is a claim in the realm of objective epistemology. So is atheism. Atheism and religion are in conflict. You liking ice cream versus me liking ice creaming is not. No one is tryng to limit discussion to one type of epistemology or the other -- nor to rule out aesthetics -- but to make the distinction and be honest. Iliad and a math book are both disected the same way when we extract 'truth' from it (and not just enjoyment): we have to reason to others about what it says. It is just an example of objective epistemology, with subjective epistemology cherry on top.
It could very be that in a free society most won't live simply to entertain you. There might not even be big sports stadiums or Olympicses -- ZOMG!
I actually changed my above post, because I'v realized that it wasnt, strictly speaking, accurate.
I kinda disagree with the subjective=/= true. There are certain areas where that isnt necessarly the case(such as art criticism).
However, leaving that issue aside, I never said the truth should be left to subjectivness, but should NOT be limited to scientific inquiery. There are other ways to approach learning, such as the construction(and refutation) of philosophical arguments.
I think this tendency to equate science with 'truth' is part of the reason of the supremecy of mainstream economics. They can claim to be speaking the 'truth' because they approach economics 'scientifically' while other schools(such as the Austirans), who reject the scientific approach cant have 'the truth' Because its not 'scientific'
If you can't accept someone liking a Christian text, would it have been better if I would have said I find more truth in Goethe?
If Goethe is all based on conjecture, then no. Its just as much goobledy ga as the Bible. It is fun and healthy to philosophize on the nature of reality. But 5000 years of subjective philosophy came to know far less truth about the world than the first 100 years of the Scientific Revolution.
What is truth? pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said "I find no basis for a charge against him. But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release the King of the Jews?"
They shouted back "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion.
Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged...." I could go on, that is from my physical Bible, not read off the internet. I am not some uneducated atheist. I like to read the things I disagree with as to better understand them.
So I guess my point is... so what? Truth is what can be objectively verified. Anything else is just conjecture. You can believe it, or take it with a grain of salt. The choice is up to you.
Pilate asks Τι εστιν αληθεια; ("What is truth?")
but this is in response to Jesus saying: πᾶς ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκούει μου τῆς φωνῆς.
"Those who care about the truth follow me."
Hence, my position that religion is about a claim to truth. And without the claim to truth there can be no setting free or following Jesus. So that must be the central issue.
In fact, in context the claim by Pilate is what makes Jesus punishable over someone who was actually criminal like Barabas, even though there are no real charges. A position, we find it, in defense of the absurd laws of the state and the mob since Pilate is a prefect of the Roman state! Who here is so 'skeptical' that they would make a claim like this in a court of law?
Religion is a claim in the realm of objective epistemology.
I think I am saying that ontology by a long shot trumps epistomology (in fact, in a way it is its creator) and it is the ontic being that can or can not choose to enter epistomological arguments. So much as a Religion, self, or whatever does not wish to define itself or justify itself with epistomological standards, and claims a form of ontological truth it trumps any episomological framework. If something claims ontological truth, it is up to another ontic to verify or reject it by their own standards.
While objective material reality may exist, and may be the only thing to exist (and I say it does) I can only know something through my being (dasein).
That said, closing statement is yours: I really don't want to get into this topic on this thread.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Logic isn't some arbitrarily chosen "method," it's the expression of the law of non-contradiction, and it's the same everywhere in the universe.
...And a "hunch" isn't the same thing as superstition, one is a guess that could possibly be right, and the other is the act of irrationally clinging to something that clearly isn't.
(The above was meant to be a reply to a post by Clayton on the first page)
Well, I think religion is also a claim to objective ontology: there is something conscious out there and consciousness emerges from matter (making it an object). In addition, heaven and hell -- if they fit people in them -- have to have a size and location (and thus an object). But even subjective ontology (like math or concepts) can be epistemically objective. That is you can say things about it, quantify it, do testing, etc.
So on both fronts religion is fighting:
A subjective ontology/objective epistemology: writing, reading, etc. about the concepts or feeling of religion.
and objective ontology/objective epistemology: making inferrences from/about the existence of an object (God) and places (hell/heaven).
Either or both of these count as the όντος. It is what is there in a religion.
And from this we can making claims about the validity/coherence of their concepts on the one hand. And on the other hand, we can expect God and heaven/hell to line up to the same expectations of any other type of object. Namely, that we can ask where exactly they are, how big, etc.
@John Ess:
lol, sorry I can't help myself:
So much as I am unique and owner of all my properties: I have the ability and power to claim to be all and all to myself, undefinable by language, forever changing, and forever perfect (and I hold this as ontological fact). Everything I claim is valid. Any authority I wish to arbitrarily subject myself to (be it religion, freedom, reason, good, country, whatever) becomes valid. Of course, if such an authority can hold no power over you (that is John Ess) your rejection becomes valid as well. In this sense religion is valid. In the sense of some one who rejects but yet can still categorize it and deal with it, religion is valid.
If some one can not reject the tenets: there is the immaterial, a thing can not be itself, and a square circle exists and claim that these things are a fundamental part of their being, it is valid in an ontological sense. Of course you can easily shrug off and be non cognitive to such silly things, but so long as something is seen as valid by me it is valid, no matter how or why. And so long as you are catagorizing me in terms that can help affirm the fact that I belive in a square circle the concept of "Dondoolee believes in square circles" exists, is recognized, and a part of your reality in some form.
The thing that I claim as valid is forever true and forever valid so long as I have some form of power to make it such. If I recognize a god as being a fact and self evident just because of the very essence of my being, so be it. It is not religions claims that matter, but my acknowledgment and agreement of the religous claims. The power of my claim, by my power of being, by my power of describing and categorizing is the validation. From an ontological point of view the language is not the totality of the logic, I am.
I've presented no criticism of logic. But Austrian methodology is not merely logic.
I didn't say they are they same. I said you cannot formally distinguish between them.
John Ess asked me to explain this, so I will.
To provide a formal distinction between two categories is to provide a decision procedure (or "algorithm") to determine whether a thing is a member of the one category or the other. For example, let us say you want to formally distinguish between even and odd numbers. You could say, "divide the given number by 2, if the result is a whole number, then it is even, else it is odd." This is a formal distinction. Many words we use differentiate between things that we cannot formally distinguish because they are just too fuzzy and complex. This is especially true when discussing human feelings and experience of the physical world. Science, helps us construct formal procedures for distinguishing many kinds of things in the physical world. For example, you can use the techniques chemistry to identify the elemental composition of an unknown substance. You can use an oscilloscope to distinguish between different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. And so on.
Faith is the single most destructive thing in human history imo. Faith in states, religions, theories, friends, family.
It may be valid to you. But I would really encourage all people to stop relying on what is valid to you, and start relying on what is valid to any objective observer.
Dondoolee:The thing that I claim as valid is forever true and forever valid so long as I have some form of power to make it such. If I recognize a god as being a fact and self evident just because of the very essence of my being, so be it. It is not religions claims that matter, but my acknowledgment and agreement of the religous claims. The power of my claim, by my power of being, by my power of describing and categorizing is the validation. From an ontological point of view the language is not the totality of the logic, I am.
I'm not even sure I agree with this completely, but I think you're great.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:Faith is the single most destructive thing in human history imo. Faith in states, religions, theories, friends, family.
I would say ignorance is the most destructive thing in human history. My faith in my family, in my morals, in myself (esteem) etc provide me great comfort and an advanced capacity to socialize.
I would agree with that. Tho I think faith is just a product of ignorance. You don't know, so you have faith this is happening, or will happen. You dont know if you're family will "jack" you, so you have faith that they won't.
Im not saying faith in itself is bad. Just that, it is faith in Hitler that allowed Nazi's, and faith in Stalin that allowed USSR. Faith in the church that led to the dark ages. Etc, etc Faith in business that leads to corporatism... it just goes on
liberty student: Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:Faith is the single most destructive thing in human history imo. Faith in states, religions, theories, friends, family. I would say ignorance is the most destructive thing in human history. My faith in my family, in my morals, in myself (esteem) etc provide me great comfort and an advanced capacity to socialize.
Is it faith or is it conviction? Is their no basis for this "faith" of yours?