homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Why Christian apologists want atheists to read Nietzsche (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Why Christian apologists want atheists to read Nietzsche
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Compassion, NT language meaning, is literally a twisting of the guts, or gut-wrenching response to someone else's suffering. A lot more than a kind of intellectualised "I really must do something about that" ..

Here's the word. It characterises a very strong reaction.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But even 'I really must do something about that' is not a rational position. But that's not a problem, is it? I don't see why political positions need to be based on reason, in fact, I would argue that many of them are not intended to be.

It depends on whether you think that someone saying that society should be ordered in such and such a way is genuinely making a rational position, or just being partial to one group or other, e.g. the rich or the poor.

But then economic arguments have the semblance of rationality. I suppose currently one such argument is that austerity tends not to promote economic growth. But even these arguments are ideological.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
On the other hand if you find that enough people agree with your preference that donkeys are well treated you have a democratic mandate for a law protecting donkeys from ill-treatment and for some public funding for donkey sanctuaries.

And if I find that enough people agree with me that red-headed people are disgusting and shouldn't be allowed to marry each other?

What's the difference between imposing on other people a personal preference, and imposing on other people a preference derived from religious belief? If the one is legitimate, then the other is. The problem with treating God as the right and proper basis of coercive legislation isn't that it's different from treating my personal preferences as the right and proper basis; it's that as far as non-believers are concerned it's the exact same thing.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think you are making the classic argument against democracy. And the classic response is that it isn't perfect, simply better than all the alternatives.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anteater, Dafyd, you make sense to me.

It's not that the materialist's (evident) morality is disallowed by his lack of a God; it's that his materialism is disallowed by his uncritical morality. I can see why that's offensive, but hey ho.

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660

 - Posted      Profile for Drewthealexander     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems very odd to argue that compassion is rational, since it seems to be a feeling. Can feelings be rational? On the other hand, I would not describe it as irrational, as that is pejorative.

Well you could argue that compassion is rational inasmuch as the person displaying compassion today, could be the same person who needs to receive it next year. It's about creating a certain cultural norm which recognises the vissitudes of life.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
mdijon:
quote:
I don't understand how you draw the dichotomy, anteater.

If it is rational to be compassionate, then it is rational to ensure society runs on a compassionate basis.

Well of course I agree with that. But there's a big "if" in there. How do you show it to be rational given a secular view of life? How do you demonstrate that Nietzsche's view is not just different to yours but wrong, in the sense of being wrongly aligned with reality as it is.

Of course, one could campaign for a view which you admit is simply a preference, with no grounding in science. If you have that much confidence in your view.

quote:
It is not rational to value your right to be free of my compassionate values over the right of your intended victim to live in a compassionate world.
Why not? What is it about the reality of the universe which makes this irrational? Who decides?

Of course, we are fortunate enough to live in a world where most governments set laws in this area. And I hope they continue to do so. But unless there is a sound philosophy at the back of it, this could change.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Alogon - is there any excellence other than (in) love?

[ 06. April 2013, 09:45: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems very odd to argue that compassion is rational, since it seems to be a feeling. Can feelings be rational? On the other hand, I would not describe it as irrational, as that is pejorative.

Well you could argue that compassion is rational inasmuch as the person displaying compassion today, could be the same person who needs to receive it next year. It's about creating a certain cultural norm which recognises the vissitudes of life.
I would call that a life strategy, as in game theory. But I don't think compassion can be summonsed up like that.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408

 - Posted      Profile for Squibs   Email Squibs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems very odd to argue that compassion is rational, since it seems to be a feeling. Can feelings be rational? On the other hand, I would not describe it as irrational, as that is pejorative.

Well you could argue that compassion is rational inasmuch as the person displaying compassion today, could be the same person who needs to receive it next year. It's about creating a certain cultural norm which recognises the vissitudes of life.
That sound more like practicality, not rationality. It might be practical for me to engage in some social convention like shaking hands but that doesn't make it a rational act, at least not to my mind.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290

 - Posted      Profile for Truman White         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems very odd to argue that compassion is rational, since it seems to be a feeling. Can feelings be rational? On the other hand, I would not describe it as irrational, as that is pejorative.

Well you could argue that compassion is rational inasmuch as the person displaying compassion today, could be the same person who needs to receive it next year. It's about creating a certain cultural norm which recognises the vissitudes of life.
Ay ay Mr Drewman. Problem with this idea is that compassion - "suffering with" implies a starting point of self-sacrifice and self-lessness. Kind of runs counter to the idea of having an attitude with utilitarian motivations.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
That sound more like practicality, not rationality.

It's all about practicality.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408

 - Posted      Profile for Squibs   Email Squibs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
That sound more like practicality, not rationality.

It's all about practicality.
Can you expand on that please?
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221

 - Posted      Profile for Grokesx   Email Grokesx   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Anteater

quote:
How do you show it to be rational given a secular view of life? How do you demonstrate that Nietzsche's view is not just different to yours but wrong, in the sense of being wrongly aligned with reality as it is.
But this just takes us back to the question discussed in the "You're False, I'm true" thread. If you fail to demonstrate that your particular brand of Christianity (as against, for eg Prosperity Theology) is correctly aligned to reality, the rationality or otherwise of a secular anti-Nietzschean view is moot.

--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken

Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
If you fail to demonstrate that your particular brand of Christianity (as against, for eg Prosperity Theology) is correctly aligned to reality, the rationality or otherwise of a secular anti-Nietzschean view is moot.

That's a blatant bit of special pleading, isn't it?

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221

 - Posted      Profile for Grokesx   Email Grokesx   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
That's a blatant bit of special pleading, isn't it?
So someone with a "secular view of life" has to demonstrate how his anti-Nietzschean view is aligned to reality, whereas the Christian merely needs to refer to Jesus without having to bother about any such alignment? That's barking.

--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken

Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Internal incoherence is a common enough test. Nietzche kind of fails that, by general consent on the part of those who have subjected his writings to serious analytical study.

Mind you, so do the purely intellectual expressions of Christianity. There's always some sacrifice of intellect involved at some stage.

I think it's a bowing to mystery myself, a recognition of the limits to human exploration and understanding of the Divine. We say we know sufficient but we know in part. YMMV. Anyone may belong to the group that believe, quite sincerely, that "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." Or maybe a group less kind than that.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
That's a blatant bit of special pleading, isn't it?
So someone with a "secular view of life" has to demonstrate how his anti-Nietzschean view is aligned to reality, whereas the Christian merely needs to refer to Jesus without having to bother about any such alignment? That's barking.
That would be barking. Perhaps you could explain to me why, 'special pleading for Christians is ok,' follows from, 'special pleading for atheists is wrong'?

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
@Alogon - is there any excellence other than (in) love?

You're not thinking that artistic excellence is loveless, are you?

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221

 - Posted      Profile for Grokesx   Email Grokesx   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Perhaps you could explain to me why, 'special pleading for Christians is ok,' follows from, 'special pleading for atheists is wrong
Dunno - you pulled me up but didn't pull Anteater up on his own special pleading. I just assumed you were fine with his argument.

Anyway, I didn't word my post very well, as I probably haven't in the past when it has come up in objective morality discussions. It's simple enough - non theist asserts an opinion on morality and a certain type of theist decides it is all important that s/he demonstrate how this aligns to reality as it is. Said theist asserts Jesus's opinion about morality, but apparently doesn't have to demonstrate how their theistic belief aligns to reality other than some variant of the hymn, "Jesus loves me—this I know,
For the Bible tells me so."

--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken

Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Grokesx:
quote:
But this just takes us back to the question discussed in the "You're False, I'm true" thread. If you fail to demonstrate that your particular brand of Christianity (as against, for eg Prosperity Theology) is correctly aligned to reality, the rationality or otherwise of a secular anti-Nietzschean view is moot.
There are a few issues here.

1. Prosperity Gospel is a bit of a red herring, as it has never gained acceptance in mainstream christianity.

2. You're main point is, of course, well made. If I say that GIVEN Christianity compassion is rational whereas it is not GIVEN materialism, you can obviously say I am no more rational since I am relying on an unproven premise.

But it doesn't work like that with many people. For those of us who do find faith problematic, and feel that the arguments of secularism are quite strong, what will often decide it is which is more worth believing. To some this will always be an invalid idea, but if the evidence is finely balanced, which I believe it is, I think it is quite a reasonable consideration.

I imagine you don't think the evidence is at all finely balanced, in which case, fair enough.

3. It'd still be nice for you to have a try, or at least state whether your own view of life leads you to the conclusion that the weak and vulnerable should be a high priority and what basis, if any, you have for campaigning for this view.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
...If I say that GIVEN Christianity compassion is rational whereas it is not GIVEN materialism, you can obviously say I am no more rational...

Something here seems backwards.

Christianity commands and defines (it's own kind of) compassion. Christianity might have elements which look sensible enough, but it is not, ultimately, rational. Therefore the apparently irrational nature of compassion is (internally) fine, and no more or less nutty than any other of our irrational beliefs.

Materialism condemns Christianity (and others) for its declared non-base in rationality. But now the apparently irrational nature of compassion is not fine, since it must either be ditched in the same trash as all the other irrational Gods, or admitted via an irrational bit of special pleading into a special category of retained wisdom which, lacking a rational basis, rather mocks the whole materialistic project... [Smile]

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Nietzche is rather beloved of Christian apologists because he at least hated christianity for what christians believe to be true of their faith, as opposed to "The new atheists" who dismiss christianity for what christians believe to be a mixture of some truth, a lot of over simplication a fair amount of nonsense.

In short Nietzche is beloved of Christian apologists because he allows them to keep their theoretical abstractions and not have to pay attention to the real world and what actually happens whenever Christians get temporal power?

He is also beloved of Christian apologists because his philosophy is very distinctively Christian in origin. Christian apologists tend to say "Without God this would happen". Nietzche says "There is no God therefore what the Christian apologists said would happen will happen." Which puts him squarely in the Christian philosophical tradition in the same way that a Black Mass is squarely within Christian traditions.

quote:
Nietzsche hated christianity as the religion of slaves and the weak, that exalted pity and despised power. And that is true, despite the many instances of christian rulers being false to their faith.
Which speaks louder? Actions or words?

Christianity is a religion that encourages people to forgive their tormentors - this can be used in one of two ways. Either it's empowering when it comes from below or it means that people are too busy forgiving oppressors to bother to deal with them, and it therefore supports and enables oppression. Christianity can easily be and historically has been a tool of the powerful.

quote:
All that said, however, I find his approach unsettling simply because it does respond to something in me, which I fear could appeal to many.
It tends to appeal to two groups of people:

Right Wing Authoritarians who have no inherent moral centre and are out for what they can grab.

Broken Christians who have had their moral reasoning corrupted by one of many forms of Christianity to believe that all good flows from God rather than that we see reciprocity in nature, in game theory, and that the Golden Rule crops up in almost all known non-aberrant moral systems. It is a consequence of the Christian floccinaucinihilipilification (I've wanted to use that word seriously for some time) of the natural world by claiming that this is a fallen world and that goodness flows from outside it rather than is inherent to the world itself. Thereby rejecting the beauty and the goodness of this world in favour of some imaginary alternative - and when you take away the imaginary alternative for being imaginary but still consider this world to be worthless rather than beautiful, fascinating, and wonderful you end up roughly where Nietzche did. A version of ethics that accepts faulty Christian premises and rejects the observably wrong parts to end up in the worst of both worlds.

quote:
The challenge to atheists is to say whether they also believe that these things follow from the nature of reality, in which case the philosophy of Nietzsche can be viewed as wrong, and even be discriminated against, as indeed overt racism is.
I will say very simply that if humans had followed Nietzchean philosophy when we were living in caves we'd have been wiped out. Humans are a social animal, and one thing being a social animal allows us to do is to specialise - which means that we can afford areas of weakness that are covered by others.

Humans are also, when you look at us, pretty weak physically. We aren't strong. We don't have sharp teeth or claws. We aren't great at climbing. We're good at precisely four things - endurance, flexibility (which isn't much good unless we know how to handle new situations), opposable thumbs (99% of the uses of which must be taught), and communication (which needs to be learned from others). Notice that word 'taught'? The people with most to teach are those who've been places and done things - not those in the prime of life, but the old who are now weak because they are old. It is precisely by supporting those who would otherwise be weak to enable them to pass their hard earned knowledge on to the young that is what enabled humanity to become the dominant species on this planet. It is by respecting all people, weak or strong, and by encouraging everyone to learn skills that play to their strengths and to teach others what they have learned that makes humanity stronger than the sum of its parts.

So yes, I reject the philosophy of Nietzche. I believe that it stands as a denial of reality - and it stands as a denial of reality that is perfectly in line with older traditions of bad philosophy whether the Christian rejection of this world as fallen or Plato's cave (which amounts to the same thing).

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Of course morality can exist without christianity, as it plainly did before. That is not the issue. The question is: What sort of morality?

Morality based on reciprocity and adding to this civilisation we are a part of.

quote:
Those who advocate eugenic programs are by no necessity nasty people. They simply have a different view of what is the best for the optimal happiness of the human race, and in their view, elimination of weaker strains is a positive move.
On the contrary they are necessarily nasty - which isn't the same thing as either good or evil. Because their means are nasty. And you might as well say "Those who advocate The Inquisition and auto-da-fe are not necessarily nasty people. They are merely more concerned with someone's fate in the next life than this and may be acting in the best interests of those they force to recant or burn."

Same chain of logic. Same pile of crap.

quote:
And apart from a view of humanity that goes beyond the purely physical, I cannot see any argument that could resist this idea. Maybe you can.
Reciprocity. "You must be the change you would see in the world." Thinking of yourself as a human being and a part of humanity rather than as an isolated individual - I didn't make the clothes I wear, I didn't invent the language I use or the computers I type on. In fact I'm responsible for very few of the things that give me a nice life - but can pay some of them forward.

quote:
Has nobody noticed that with the decline of religion in the West, which really got going in the 17th century, the number of people slaughtered in wars and repressive regimes has got bigger and bigger.
Not really. Europe is at its longest period of peace in history. And homicide rates appear to be plummeting. About the only death rate that has increased (other than from old age) is due to industrialisation and when you already have scum in charge they can do things more efficiently.

And has nobody noticed that with the decline of religion in the West, we've actually learned to cure the sick and make the lame walk - and eliminated smallpox (and but for a few preachers we'd have eliminated Polio as well). We not only visit people in prison but we treat them better than ever before. We've set up a welfare state so the hungry get fed.

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
So my thesis is that if christianity is true, then it means the God, who has made public the fact that he is on the side of the dispossessed will triumph. Which means any actions designed to oppress and enslave the weak will be be met with His judgement.

And yet the God of the bible has a long track record of wiping out those weaker than he is, of punishing his chosen people by sending them into exile, of toying with those weaker than he is - whether mind controlling Pharaoh in order to give himself an excuse to show off or torturing Job and treating his family as colateral damage.

quote:
Is there anything deriveable from a totally materialistic view of reality that makes such actions irrational?
See above. It is not irrational to trample on the weak if you think you can get away with it. But it is bad for you and your species to allow others to trample on the weak even if you are not one of those being trampled on. And it is therefore good to make sure others can't - humanity rose to the top by listening to the weak and using us to cover for each others' weaknesses rather than eating the weak.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
In short Nietzche is beloved of Christian apologists because he allows them to keep their theoretical abstractions and not have to pay attention to the real world and what actually happens whenever Christians get temporal power?

What happens when Christians get temporal power is no worse than when secular humanists get temporal power. (We'll put aside the distracting analogy with communism. The French Revolution was based on the values espoused by secular humanists. It was not all peace and light.)

quote:
He is also beloved of Christian apologists because his philosophy is very distinctively Christian in origin. Christian apologists tend to say "Without God this would happen". Nietzche says "There is no God therefore what the Christian apologists said would happen will happen." Which puts him squarely in the Christian philosophical tradition in the same way that a Black Mass is squarely within Christian traditions.
And which of Nietzsche's works is this paragraph based upon?
Nietzsche is Christian in origin in the same way that Locke and Kant and J S Mill and Russell etc are Christian in origin. His direct intellectual antecedents are Schopenhauer (in metaphysics) and Goethe, and German Romanticism more generally. (Schopenhauer's philosophy is its own thing, but Goethe was, during the middle period of his life at least, an Epicurean atheist. Nietzsche moved away from Schopenhauer and towards Goethe's Epicureanism as his thought developed and he rejected Wagner.) Nietzsche's thought is an intensification of early German romanticism's admiration for the Greeks and concurrent rejection of Christianity.

quote:
Christianity can easily be and historically has been a tool of the powerful.
Anything has historically been a tool of the powerful. Anti-religion, as in Hitchens, was just as useful in justifying the War in Iraq as anything Christian. In fact, among otherwise intelligent people, probably more so.

quote:
we see reciprocity in nature, in game theory, and that the Golden Rule crops up in almost all known non-aberrant moral systems.
If only it were that easy.

Game theory: what were you saying about theoretical abstractions? Game theory gives egalitarian answers if you feed in egalitarian starting conditions. Perhaps it can deal with imbalances of power - but most game theorists don't seem to.
'non-aberrant moral systems': presumably what makes a moral system aberrant is that the Golden Rule doesn't crop up in it. In other words, the Golden Rule crops up in almost all known moral systems that accept the Golden Rule.
Golden Rule: The Golden Rule, being a purely formal criterion, is empty. That said, given a conflict between how I want to treat other people and how I want other people to treat me, it gives no guidance as to which want to adjust.

Game theory requires that everything can be expressed in terms of quantified payoffs. As I said in response to Croesos, if you think you can express human goods in terms of quantified payoffs you're basically buying into neo-liberalism. Stressing mutuality and so on just means you're buying into the Clinton/ New Labour version of neo-liberalism: it's still neo-liberalism at bottom. And we've seen that left-wing houses built on neo-liberal sands fall down.

The fundamental problem with stressing reciprocity and so on in human nature is that human nature is a complicated thing. After all, human nature evolved: there's no a priori reason to think that you can get a coherent ethic out of it any more than you can get a method of giving birth without medical intervention that is risk-free to mother and baby. If you want to argue against strict amorality you can compare human child-raising practices with chimpanzee child-raising practices, and so on. But the amoralist can cite features of human nature that argue against your case. You can't get an ethic out of a value-free account of human nature.

quote:
(Nietzsche) tends to appeal to two groups of people:
You appear not to know that Nietzsche is a major influence on most left-wing French postmodernism.

quote:
when you take away the imaginary alternative for being imaginary but still consider this world to be worthless rather than beautiful, fascinating, and wonderful you end up roughly where Nietzche did.
You do realise that's Nietzsche's critique of nihilism and Dover Beach style atheism? Nietzsche's whole project is to rescue the wonder and fascination of life from the slanders of Christianity.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221

 - Posted      Profile for Grokesx   Email Grokesx   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@ Anteater
quote:
Prosperity Gospel is a bit of a red herring, as it has never gained acceptance in mainstream christianity.
Not really. The fact it has gained little acceptance has no bearing on how well it is "aligned to reality".

quote:
It'd still be nice for you to have a try, or at least state whether your own view of life leads you to the conclusion that the weak and vulnerable should be a high priority and what basis, if any, you have for campaigning for this view.
Pretty much what Justinian said, really, but then again sort of not. While I believe all he says is true, I don't favour compassion over Nietzschean values for those reasons, nor yet does my view of life lead me to the conclusion that the weak and vulnerable should be a priority. If I said it did I would be lying, or at least mistaking a post hoc rationalization for my real motivation. I wouldn't be alone in that, mind.

You see, it's just the way I am, just as the fact that my compassion is a sight more theoretical than actual is just the way I am. And I'd be prepared to bet that it's the same for you, too (not the theoretical bit, I hasten to add). I reckon you choose Christianity because what you see as the core message strikes a chord with you, not because you really believe it aligns to reality, because, come on, all the stuff that's not about loving your neighbour is just a crock of shite.

And if all this sounds irrational and contradictory, it is. But hey ho, rationalist philosophizing - fun that it is - is a crock of shite too.

--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken

Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207

 - Posted      Profile for Ikkyu   Email Ikkyu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This recent book is pertinent to the discussion.

The Bonobo and the Atheist

In it Frans de Waal argues that human morality comes from our evolutionary ancestors. Not religion. Instead of just arguing about it, he actually uses evidence from recent primate studies to back up his arguments.

I agree with Justinian that our species clearly would not be as successful as it is without a degree of empathy and compassion.
Those who argue that materialists HAVE to be in favor of a dog eat dog morality,or somehow are not real materialists are mistaken.
Just observing nature we have learned that evolutionary survival strategies include cooperation, empathy and compassion.
Also I find it strange that common human traits like compassion and empathy seem to be exclusive of Christianity for some people.
And somehow would never have appeared otherwise.
I guess that the claim is that the only good in the world comes from active intervention of "god" and it can't be explained otherwise.
As an example of non-christian empathy a quote I like from the Dhammapada


quote:

All beings tremble before violence.
All fear death.
All love life.
See yourself in others.
Then whom can you hurt?
What harm can you do?
He who seeks happiness
By hurting those who seek happiness
Will never find happiness.
For your brother is like you.
He wants to be happy.


Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408

 - Posted      Profile for Squibs   Email Squibs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
This recent book is pertinent to the discussion.

The Bonobo and the Atheist

In it Frans de Waal argues that human morality comes from our evolutionary ancestors. Not religion. Instead of just arguing about it, he actually uses evidence from recent primate studies to back up his arguments.

I agree with Justinian that our species clearly would not be as successful as it is without a degree of empathy and compassion.
Those who argue that materialists HAVE to be in favor of a dog eat dog morality,or somehow are not real materialists are mistaken.
Just observing nature we have learned that evolutionary survival strategies include cooperation, empathy and compassion.
Also I find it strange that common human traits like compassion and empathy seem to be exclusive of Christianity for some people.
And somehow would never have appeared otherwise.
I guess that the claim is that the only good in the world comes from active intervention of "god" and it can't be explained otherwise.
As an example of non-christian empathy a quote I like from the Dhammapada

Who here has argued that morality came from religion? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think anyone has.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207

 - Posted      Profile for Ikkyu   Email Ikkyu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Who here has argued that morality came from religion? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think anyone has.

Basically the same question was asked before by you in this thread and was answered by Crœsos.
And it was not religion it was Christianity in particular.


quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:


quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
I may have missed it. Can you point out where it was claimed that non-Christians can not be moral? What exactly is the connection between your post and the post you are responding to?

Always glad to oblige. The point wasn't that non-Christians couldn't be moral, but rather than non-Christians would never be interested in helping "the weak", however defined. It seemed to genuinely perplex our thread opener:

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
What I'm getting at is that Christianity teaches, whether you believe it or not, that support for the vulnerable is an unqualified good. Nietzsche sees it as an unqualified bad.

Do you see no danger that the erosion of Christianity could lead to an erosion of compassion for the weak? Who. Else will champion them, and on what basis?

The underlying premise here is that absent Christianity, no one would feel compassion for "the vulnerable".



So I was just commenting on that previous exchange. My main point is in support of the idea that there are rational non-christian grounds for compassion.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:


I reckon you choose Christianity because what you see as the core message strikes a chord with you, not because you really believe it aligns to reality, because, come on, all the stuff that's not about loving your neighbour is just a crock of shite.

And if all this sounds irrational and contradictory, it is. But hey ho, rationalist philosophizing - fun that it is - is a crock of shite too.

It read like a request to join.

"I think Christianity apart from neighbour-loving, is a crock of shite

I reckon you only chose it for the neighbour-loving anyway.

So, come on, all this non-neighbour-loving stuff really is a crock of shite!"

I can almost hear the you playing the tambourines! "Come and join us, come and join us!" The world looks so much better once you accept the crock of shite argument! Why, you can even see rationalist philosophising as a crock of shite!

Mind you, I give you high honesty marks for recognising the crock-of-shite-iness in your own post. That's pretty rare.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
In it Frans de Waal argues that human morality comes from our evolutionary ancestors. Not religion.

This is trivially true though. Religion comes from our evolutionary ancestors. Language comes from our evolutionary ancestors. Aggression comes from our evolutionary ancestors. Ambition comes from our evolutionary ancestors. Cruelty comes from our evolutionary ancestors.

So nothing follows that makes it rational to choose morality over aggression in cases where they conflict.

There's a further problem. I just said language comes from our evolutionary ancestors. Which obviously it does. But the choice between English and Japanese does not; that's cultural. Likewise, while the capacity for moral judgements comes from our evolutionary ancestors, the content of those judgements varies with culture. And while nothing about language requires us to think one language is better than another, morality is essentially normative.

quote:
As an example of non-christian empathy a quote I like from the Dhammapada
I do not believe A.C.Grayling is about to shave off his hair, don a saffron robe, and become a monk.
Whether Platonism and Buddhism justify non-aggression or empathy is neither here nor there for those who reject the metaphysics or anthropology of Platonism or Buddhism.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Justinian:
quote:
Morality based on reciprocity
is not what Jesus taught. "If you give to those from whom you hope to receive, what good is that" (paraphrase). Christ's morality was based on giving with no expectation of reciprocity.

Now you may say he is wrong, but I'm not so sure.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Grokesx:
quote:
I reckon you choose Christianity because what you see as the core message strikes a chord with you, not because you really believe it aligns to reality
Well the first part is true, although it's not just that alignment to ethics. I think it gives a better account of why the world is and why human experience, including religious experience is that way it is. Better, though not conclusive, and I have never suggested that the case against is unworthy of respect.


quote:
on, all the stuff that's not about loving your neighbour is just a crock of shite.
Unfortunately you do appear to think that case against is unworthy of respect.

Which just shows a narrow mind, and which is why some people like to use the term Atheist Fundamentalist, using Fundamentalist to mean closed-mindedly dogmatic.

Nobody can dismiss your refusal to believe. Many great people, including "secular saints" are on your side.

But them again, many are on mine, including great scientists, as I expect you know.

Bertrand Russell, himself quite anti-religious, in his discussion of the thought of Augustine said that he holds it as a principle that when clearly brilliant thinkers hold to a view, and he thinks it plain stupid, then the fault is in him. I think that is wise. Respect for other people militates against a closed mind.

Maybe you cannot understand that.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207

 - Posted      Profile for Ikkyu   Email Ikkyu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:


So nothing follows that makes it rational to choose morality over aggression in cases where they conflict. [snip]

And while nothing about language requires us to think one language is better than another, morality is essentially normative.


Since you already admitted that Religion comes from our ancestors what makes the norms derived from religion any more rational? And my point was that empathy is a product of evolution because of its survival value. So when human cultures create our moral codes, it is not surprising that compassion and empathy make an appearance. What specific form those moral codes take of course depends on the culture.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

Whether Platonism and Buddhism justify non-aggression or empathy is neither here nor there for those who reject the metaphysics or anthropology of Platonism or Buddhism.

What were the metaphysics of that Dhammapada quote? For me its a good description of the motivation given by empathy. Of course Buddhism has a lot of metaphysical baggage. But the
point was against presenting Christianity as the only proponent of empathy, and the only alternative to nihilism.

Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Since you already admitted that Religion comes from our ancestors what makes the norms derived from religion any more rational? And my point was that empathy is a product of evolution because of its survival value. So when human cultures create our moral codes, it is not surprising that compassion and empathy make an appearance. What specific form those moral codes take of course depends on the culture.

Values derived from Christianity or Buddhism stand a chance of being more rational in so far as they stand a chance of being true.
Limits on empathy, eg hatred of outsiders and people who are different, are also products of human evolution because of their survival value. Survival value provides no reason to exalt compassion and reject xenophobia as elements of a moral system.
To put it another way, to say that it doesn't matter what specific form a moral code takes so long as compassion and empathy are some sort of element ducks the question. I'm sure compassion is an element in even George Osbourne's moral system.

quote:
What were the metaphysics of that Dhammapada quote? For me its a good description of the motivation given by empathy. Of course Buddhism has a lot of metaphysical baggage. But the point was against presenting Christianity as the only proponent of empathy, and the only alternative to nihilism.
Shorn of the Buddhist metaphysical anthropology, is there any reason to suppose that:
quote:
He who seeks happiness
By hurting those who seek happiness
Will never find happiness

is anything other than a pious thought of the sort sewn on samplers in cross-stitch?
Also, 'all beings' does not mean 'all human beings' - the quote is radically anti-humanist.

As an aside, the quote as a whole is expressive of a tendency in Buddhism to cast the practical expression of empathy as abstaining from harm, where Christianity is more likely to cast it, for better or worse, as actively aiding others.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221

 - Posted      Profile for Grokesx   Email Grokesx   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@ Anteater

Ha. On balance I'm probably ahead in the respect stakes. At max I've offended around 2 billion people with my intolerant, dogmatic view that those parts of Christianity that aren't expressing ethical views similar to mine are all a crock of shite. BTW, lurking in there is the hardly earth shattering observation that all but
the most devout disregard the parts that don't chime with them - you know, the OT stuff like killing your kids for disobeying, the ban on mixed fabrics - even if they don't express themselves in quite the same way as I do. But anyway, as has already been observed, with this:

quote:
Do you see no danger that the erosion of Christianity could lead to an erosion of compassion for the weak? Who. Else will champion them, and on what basis?
you potentially offend all the other 5 billion people on the planet with the implication that not only can they not be compassionate without god, but it has to be the Christian flavour.

And yes, I know that's a bit tu quoque-ey.

--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken

Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408

 - Posted      Profile for Squibs   Email Squibs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:

Basically the same question was asked before by you in this thread and was answered by Crœsos.

I'm aware of that. But it looks to me like you have both missed the point. For arguments sake I'll propose the following:

1) Non-religious people do care for the poor and are quite capable of being morally outstanding people and all round good eggs.
2) People are motivated to do good because of their religious convictions.

If tomorrow the wheels fell of Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. the contention, at least as I read it, is that a proportion of these erstwhile believers might begin to question whether their charitable involvement with the poor is something that they feel the need to continue. Some might conclude that the answer is no.

So if we grant that non-religious people can be wonderfully compassionate it seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that if religion suddenly fell apart there would in some measure be an erosion in the quality and the amount of care given towards the poor.

[ 10. April 2013, 23:07: Message edited by: Squibs ]

Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207

 - Posted      Profile for Ikkyu   Email Ikkyu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Values derived from Christianity or Buddhism stand a chance of being more rational in so far as they stand a chance of being true.

There we agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Limits on empathy, eg hatred of outsiders and people who are different, are also products of human evolution because of their survival value. Survival value provides no reason to exalt compassion and reject xenophobia as elements of a moral system.

Maybe that is why there is nothing like that in the Bible? For example
Matthew 10:5-15 ?
Christianity has not been among the most tolerant religions.

quote:

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Shorn of the Buddhist metaphysical anthropology, is there any reason to suppose that:
quote:
He who seeks happiness
By hurting those who seek happiness
Will never find happiness

is anything other than a pious thought of the sort sewn on samplers in cross-stitch?
You conveniently left out the next verse:

quote:
For your brother is like you. He wants to be happy.
The reason is empathy. How can you be happy hurting other people if you have empathy?

quote:

Originally posted by Dafyd:

Also, 'all beings' does not mean 'all human beings' - the quote is radically anti-humanist.

Why? As our knowledge has increased the notion of Humans as totally other and separate from
the other “beings” makes less and less sense.
If Humanism is according to the
American Humanist Association.


quote:
American Humanist
“Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”

Is the greater good of Humanity totally separate from the good of other “beings”. In which way does Humanity benefit from the suffering and extinction of other beings?

quote:

Originally posted by Dafyd:

As an aside, the quote as a whole is expressive of a tendency in Buddhism to cast the practical expression of empathy as abstaining from harm, where Christianity is more likely to cast it, for better or worse, as actively aiding others.

Ill have to concede that point to some extent. But it is a matter of what is emphasized in the texts. Practices such as Metta if actually taken
seriously will produce people who act on their compassion.
Metta

Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ikkyu

That Metta link doesn't work for me. This does. Does it say what you wanted to say?

A point about proof texting (e.g. your Matt 10 example). Presumably you're aware that you can use texts to demonstrate both pro-jewish and antisemitic sentiment, pro-women and anti-women sentiments, pro-slavery and anti-slavery sentiments, pro-equality and anti-equality sentiments etc etc? That's a game anyone can play and lots of people do.

There are serious legitimate questions to be raised about the overall content of the Christian Holy Book and the extent to which passages should carry a "health warning" about the need to consider both original context and present relevance. I'm not knocking that, ask those questions myself. I've been a serious student of the Bible for close on 40 years, know a lot about theological variations within Christianity.

So I think serious discussion isn't helped by throwaway proof texting to make a tolerance point, (even though it may be OK as a bit of rhetoric). That's a criticism you'll read Christians making to one another here. Christians have been, and still are, proponents and opponents of various tolerances and we haven't always agreed about what we should be tolerant about. Can we take that as a given?

I've already said here that folks who look for negative proof texts from Nietzsche can find plenty of ammunition but that doesn't necessarily show any in-depth understanding of the complex writings of this complex man. It's necessary to do some work to grasp that.

I suggest you cut a similar amount of slack for serious students of other writings. Like the Bible for example. You won't find many literalists hereabouts.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
LaviniaB
Apprentice
# 17639

 - Posted      Profile for LaviniaB         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Interesting discussion! I just read Prof. Janaway's thoughts on Nietzsche in Richard Holloway's eBook "Honest Doubt: The History of an Epic Struggle" - the transcripts of the Radio 4 series last year. They are now available on Amazon Nietzsche appears in Chap 14. He says that Nietzsche suggested the end of morality would happen within 200 years of writing (1870s) which brings us to around now!
PS I hear the audio of the series is going to be published in May by BBC AudioBooks - exciting stuff.

Posts: 1 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Limits on empathy, eg hatred of outsiders and people who are different, are also products of human evolution because of their survival value. Survival value provides no reason to exalt compassion and reject xenophobia as elements of a moral system.

Maybe that is why there is nothing like that in the Bible? For example Matthew 10:5-15 ?
Christianity has not been among the most tolerant religions.

The record of Christianity is poor. But not as bad as often painted.
I'm not an inerrantist Protestant about the Bible. Although you might like to compare Luke 10. (12 is the number of the tribes of Israel; 70 is the traditional number of the gentile nations.)

quote:
quote:

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Shorn of the Buddhist metaphysical anthropology, is there any reason to suppose that:
quote:
He who seeks happiness
By hurting those who seek happiness
Will never find happiness

is anything other than a pious thought of the sort sewn on samplers in cross-stitch?
You conveniently left out the next verse:

quote:
For your brother is like you. He wants to be happy.
The reason is empathy. How can you be happy hurting other people if you have empathy?

Ah, there's my problem. You see I thought the passage was an exhortation to empathy, rather than a warning of the dangers of empathy.

quote:
quote:

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Also, 'all beings' does not mean 'all human beings' - the quote is radically anti-humanist.

Why? As our knowledge has increased the notion of Humans as totally other and separate from the other “beings” makes less and less sense.
If Humanism is according to the American Humanist Association. “Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”
Is the greater good of Humanity totally separate from the good of other “beings”. In which way does Humanity benefit from the suffering and extinction of other beings?

Are there many members of the American Humanist Association who walk around with brooms so they don't accidentally step on an ant? No? Probably there's a difference between Humanism and Buddhism then.
Buddhists are, I believe, enjoined not to engage in practices like farming animals. Does the American Humanist Association enjoin its members to desist from even factory farming?
Asking whether humanity benefits from the suffering and extinction of other beings is still treating the welfare of other beings as a means to the benefit of humanity. (Why the capital H?)

The problem with humanism as an ideology is that it's big on affirming woolly platitudes about reason and the greater good of humanity, and poor on attempts to use reason to find out what the greater good of humanity is. In so far as it has an intellectual justification, it is based upon the value of some aspect of humanity. (There are radical utilitarians who can call themselves humanists; but that has its own problems.) No doubt most humanists give lip service to environmental concerns, but not in a kind of way that can function in public reason.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As an aside, the quote as a whole is expressive of a tendency in Buddhism to cast the practical expression of empathy as abstaining from harm, where Christianity is more likely to cast it, for better or worse, as actively aiding others.

Ill have to concede that point to some extent. But it is a matter of what is emphasized in the texts. Practices such as Metta if actually taken seriously will produce people who act on their compassion.
If I were to say that practices such as the Daily Office if actually taken seriously will produce people who don't engage in resentment, would you let that one pass?

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207

 - Posted      Profile for Ikkyu   Email Ikkyu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Ikkyu

That Metta link doesn't work for me. This does. Does it say what you wanted to say?


Thanks for the link, that one is ok. I believe this one is a bit better. I hope it works now.
Acces to insight Metta

As for proof texting. You have a good point.

I was trying to respond to:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Limits on empathy, eg hatred of outsiders and people who are different, are also products of human evolution because of their survival value. Survival value provides no reason to exalt compassion and reject xenophobia as elements of a moral system.

I was trying to say that a moral system is not based on only one argument. The fact that empathy has survival value is only a starting point.
I was just establishing the fact that some components of our moral code have origins in our Biology. Not that that is PROOF that empathy is rational.
So when you say that most Christians (At least here) have a more nuanced view of scripture than inerrantists. I can only agree.
But my example was that just as there being a biological explanation for Xenofobia does not mean you have to include it in your moral code,
the fact that there are passages in the bible in favour of Slavery or intolerance does not mean that they need to be included in the moral code of all Christians. You have to put those in context just as you put Xenophobic tendencies in out biology in context.
So if Christians are allowed to add nuance and context to their arguments naturalist accounts of morality deserve the same chance.

Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207

 - Posted      Profile for Ikkyu   Email Ikkyu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:

Originally posted by Dafyd:

Are there many members of the American Humanist Association who walk around with brooms so they don't accidentally step on an ant? No? Probably there's a difference between Humanism and Buddhism then.

There also are no Buddhists who do that unless they convert to Jainism first.
quote:

Originally posted by Dafyd:

Buddhists are, I believe, enjoined not to engage in practices like farming animals. Does the American Humanist Association enjoin its members to desist from even factory farming?


Was your point that all Humanists are not Buddhists? I think that is trivially true.
About Buddhism being "radically anti-humanist."
I just not see that as a convincing argument.
And I am sure there are plenty of Humanists against factory farming.

quote:

Originally posted by Dafyd:

Asking whether humanity benefits from the suffering and extinction of other beings is still treating the welfare of other beings as a means to the benefit of humanity.

That is not the only argument in favor of that idea just one possible argument that happens to be true, the suffering and extinction of animals is bad for humans. Also having empathy for animals for other than selfish reasons is anti humanist because?

quote:

Originally posted by Dafyd:

The problem with humanism as an ideology is that it's big on affirming woolly platitudes about reason and the greater good of humanity, and poor on attempts to use reason to find out what the greater good of humanity is. In so far as it has an intellectual justification, it is based upon the value of some aspect of humanity. (There are radical utilitarians who can call themselves humanists; but that has its own problems.) No doubt most humanists give lip service to environmental concerns, but not in a kind of way that can function in public reason.

You seem to define humanists as somehow only been able to care about humans and any humanist argument trying to justify caring about anything else as non-rational and incompatible with humanism. This is a straw man argument.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

If I were to say that practices such as the Daily Office if actually taken seriously will produce people who don't engage in resentment, would you let that one pass?

I have known and know many practicing Christians.
I used to be Catholic until my senior year in High School. So of course I have seen Christians who practice what they preach, and who benefit from it. Of course, I also have met the other kind of Christian, but that is irrelevant.
I would concede that there are positive effects to be gained from the Daily Office properly done.
Why not?
So what is so strange about thinking that people who properly practice Metta might actually benefit from it? Or decide to put compassion in practice?

Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I was trying to say that a moral system is not based on only one argument. The fact that empathy has survival value is only a starting point.
I was just establishing the fact that some components of our moral code have origins in our Biology. Not that that is PROOF that empathy is rational.

But my example was that just as there being a biological explanation for Xenofobia does not mean you have to include it in your moral code,
the fact that there are passages in the bible in favour of Slavery or intolerance does not mean that they need to be included in the moral code of all Christians. You have to put those in context just as you put Xenophobic tendencies in out biology in context.
So if Christians are allowed to add nuance and context to their arguments naturalist accounts of morality deserve the same chance.

Firstly, it's fine to say that the argument you gave is only one argument, or only one component of the argument. But if it's the only component of the argument that you've presented then it's a bit unfair to object when someone criticises it as a standalone argument.

I don't think your comparison between using the Bible as a basis for morality and using biology as a basis for morality works. At least, as far as you've presented it. It's not a matter of nuance and context.
How ought a divine command theorist who believes all the Bible is inerrant react to conflicting passages in the Bible? (I'm neither a divine command theorist or an inerrantist; but that's the best case for your analogy.) They ought to observe that the Bible contains a number of programmatic statements about how to summarise it or statements of general principles and so on. And that means that in case of conflict you ought to go with the interpretations that best fit with the general principles. So if faced with a dilemma over loving their neighbour or persecuting them they ought to notice that the general statements favour the loving option.
No such general principles of interpretation are available from biology.

quote:
quote:

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Are there many members of the American Humanist Association who walk around with brooms so they don't accidentally step on an ant? No? Probably there's a difference between Humanism and Buddhism then.

There also are no Buddhists who do that unless they convert to Jainism first.
I stand corrected.

quote:
quote:

Originally posted by Dafyd:

Buddhists are, I believe, enjoined not to engage in practices like farming animals. Does the American Humanist Association enjoin its members to desist from even factory farming?


Was your point that all Humanists are not Buddhists? I think that is trivially true.
About Buddhism being "radically anti-humanist."
I just not see that as a convincing argument.
And I am sure there are plenty of Humanists against factory farming.

My point is that humanists who are not Buddhists can't merely cherry pick bits of Buddhism out of context in order to make up for their inability to justify their moral positions from their own resources.
I'm sure there are plenty of humanists against factory farming too. It's just that it's hard to justify a prohibition on factory farming from a metaphysics-free standpoint. It's equally hard to do so from any standpoint that takes as its basis the value and importance of the human being. And if you're not starting from the value and importance of the human being, why are you calling yourself a humanist?
Let me put it another way: is there any reason at all why a humanist can't support factory farming?

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Asking whether humanity benefits from the suffering and extinction of other beings is still treating the welfare of other beings as a means to the benefit of humanity.

That is not the only argument in favor of that idea just one possible argument that happens to be true, the suffering and extinction of animals is bad for humans. Also having empathy for animals for other than selfish reasons is anti humanist because?
As I said earlier, it's not really fair to object that it's not the only argument when it is the only argument that you've presented.
Is there any reason why a humanist has to agree with you that the suffering and extinction of animals is bad for humans?

If humanism doesn't mean treating humans as the source of value, then what does it mean? Suppose someone proposes painlessly sterilising humanity because the planet would be better off without us: is that anti-humanist because?

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu: You seem to define humanists as somehow only been able to care about humans and any humanist argument trying to justify caring about anything else as non-rational and incompatible with humanism. This is a straw man argument.
It would be a straw man argument if that was what I was arguing.
Definition of humanism:
quote:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
Now if someone cares about something that isn't the greater good of humanity, they're not doing it because they aspire to the greater good of humanity. Yes? Aspiring to the greater good of humanity only gives you reason to care about something if it is a means to the greater good of humanity. If you care about something that isn't a means to the greater good of humanity, it is for some other reason or no reason at all.

If someone cares about animal welfare for reasons other than that they aspire to the greater good of humanity, then it's not because they're a humanist. It's for other reasons. And those reasons might well come into conflict with their aspiration to the greater good of humanity.

Is that clearer?

quote:
So what is so strange about thinking that people who properly practice Metta might actually benefit from it? Or decide to put compassion in practice?
Up the thread you said Christianity is not the most tolerant of religions. Now, I could have replied that Christians who properly practice prayer aren't intolerant. But you would quite rightly object that was a no-true Christian argument. Saying that Buddhists who properly practice meditation are compassionate in practice is much the same sort of argument.

[ 11. April 2013, 20:04: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207

 - Posted      Profile for Ikkyu   Email Ikkyu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Dafyd
This is why I keep coming back to the Ship. You find people who disagree with you but
actually take time to read what you post (even my limited contributions) and
help you think more deeply about what you believe and why instead of just scoring cheap points.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

They ought to observe that the Bible contains a number of programmatic statements about how to summarise it or statements of general principles and so on. And that means that in case of conflict you ought to go with the interpretations that best fit with the general principles.
So if faced with a dilemma over loving their neighbour or persecuting them they ought to notice that the general statements favour the loving option.
No such general principles of interpretation are available from biology.

Unfortunately I have not presented my arguments in a very coherent fashion so far.
I think morality cannot be deduced from biology.
(Here is an example of a person that holds similar views)
But I don't think scientific information is irrelevant to morality. Scientific discoveries
that bear on DH topics for example have to be taken into account. Of course any attempt to do a secular
morality has to face the fact that you have to start from some assumptions that are subjective.
A test for a good secular morality has to be that it fits reality and it helps in attaining its intended goals.
And it always has to remain a work in progress subjected to constant revision form experience.

I do not believe that this subjective part of any secular morality is a problem that it does not share with its
religious counterparts. Arriving at those "general principles" from the bible is a subjective enterprise.
If not, everyone would agree on what they are.
So for me the claim that the absence of Christianity means nihilism unless naturalists can produce absolute
morality out of thin air, makes no sense. Because the "absolute morality" of Christianity is subjective.

quote:

Originally posted by Dafyd:

Let me put it another way: is there any reason at all why a humanist can't support factory farming?

Because it damages the environment and contributes to global warming? Because its cruel? You would need to persuade him not tell him that he can't.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

If someone cares about animal welfare for reasons other than that they aspire to the greater good of humanity, then it's not because they're a humanist. It's for other reasons. And those reasons might well come into conflict
with their aspiration to the greater good of humanity.
Is that clearer?

From a Buddhist perspective the greater good of humanity cannot be separated at all from the good of our environment. Does humanity even exist separately from the air we breathe the food we eat and the history of life that precedes us? What does it mean to be human without air? If your definition of the grater good of humanity is narrower than this I believe it is deficient.
There are probably humanists whose definition of the greater good of humanity may be like you describe.
But there are Christians that don't hold many of the values that you hold either.

[ 11. April 2013, 21:34: Message edited by: Ikkyu ]

Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
is there any reason at all why a humanist can't support factory farming?

I'd suggest that it's a horror of homicide which naturally extends to a horror of killing other life to the extent that it resembles human life.
Almost everyone would be sorry or angry to see a chimpanzee killed or cruelly treated, but hardly anyone would give a second thought to swatting a fly. Cattle would be somewhere in the middle. So, naturally again, would a human fetus, by the way: we should expect to consider killing it increasingly repellent the older it is, without necessarily calling it murder.

There's also the growing realization that factory farming is usually deleterious to the environment because it is overspecialized. Environmental damage will make life more difficult for the human race in the long run. The old family farm model, with a place for a little bit of everything, everything in its place, and everything on a human scale, shows much more ecological wisdom.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What happens when Christians get temporal power is no worse than when secular humanists get temporal power. (We'll put aside the distracting analogy with communism. The French Revolution was based on the values espoused by secular humanists. It was not all peace and light.)

I could quibble with the example and point out that one of the biggest PR problems the French Revolution had was that the people being executed by them mostly were literate, connected, and many were capable of writing. Unlike the peasantry that had been killed before. But that's only a minor quibble. From what I can tell any group that thinks it has The Answer is going to be a bad thing in power - humans are more complex than one human mind can embrace. (And fear any regime that says that humans aren't good enough - see the New Soviet Man or Homo Economicus). So point basically accepted.

quote:
Anything has historically been a tool of the powerful. Anti-religion, as in Hitchens, was just as useful in justifying the War in Iraq as anything Christian. In fact, among otherwise intelligent people, probably more so.
Most intelligent people I knew at the time weren't buying what Hitchens was selling back then. But some tools are easier to turn to the use of the powerful - Monotheism being the belief that there is one central most important figure of the universe is a particularly easy one.

quote:
'non-aberrant moral systems': presumably what makes a moral system aberrant is that the Golden Rule doesn't crop up in it.
I'd have said that you know them by their fruits - but there is possibly circular reasoning in there.

quote:
Game theory requires that everything can be expressed in terms of quantified payoffs. As I said in response to Croesos, if you think you can express human goods in terms of quantified payoffs you're basically buying into neo-liberalism. Stressing mutuality and so on just means you're buying into the Clinton/ New Labour version of neo-liberalism: it's still neo-liberalism at bottom. And we've seen that left-wing houses built on neo-liberal sands fall down.
You are confusing the map with the territory. Game Theory is a tool that can be used to investigate the real world and for which you need to attempt to take account of unquantifiables - if you fail to do so then the map doesn't match the territory. In which case what's wrong is the map.

quote:
The fundamental problem with stressing reciprocity and so on in human nature is that human nature is a complicated thing.
The problem is that human nature is a complicated thing - and that the human brain is not large enough to model the interactions involving itself - it's not a step larger than itself. Any consistent ethic large enough to take the whole range of human behaviour and motivation into account is too large to understand. Any consistent ethic that is comprehensible is too small to cover the range of humanity and most are an attempt to fit humanity on a Procrustean bed. Like so many things the best you can do is take approximations while being aware they are approximations.

If it's a choice between a coherent ethical system that doesn't match up to humans and a set of useful ethical guidelines that do I'll take the guidelines every time.

quote:
quote:
(Nietzsche) tends to appeal to two groups of people:
You appear not to know that Nietzsche is a major influence on most left-wing French postmodernism.
Given that my experiences of left-wing French postmodernism (including teaching my dyslexic and highly non-academic little sister to read Barthes to the point that her tutor said she understood him better than he himself did by the simple expedient of showing her how to translate each deliberately obfuscated sentence into something clear) have lead me to the conclusion that French post-modernism is a movement based round trying to obscure that the Emperor is merely wearing boxer shorts. It had a few good points to make initially as a reaction against the excesses of the modernism even the name 'post-modernism' shows it to be reacting to. (Most notably the taking account of different viewpoints being essential). But, like many revolutionaries (including topically Thatcher) the bits that needed breaking were the easy part. That they look to Nietzche for inspiration doesn't surprise me.

quote:
You do realise that's Nietzsche's critique of nihilism and Dover Beach style atheism? Nietzsche's whole project is to rescue the wonder and fascination of life from the slanders of Christianity.
Indeed. By modern standards Lincoln was a flaming racist despite being a visionary for his day. Nietzche saw the trap and struggled to extracate himself but didn't entirely succeed.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Asking whether humanity benefits from the suffering and extinction of other beings is still treating the welfare of other beings as a means to the benefit of humanity. (Why the capital H?)

Oh, we can ask. No one is saying we can't ask. We then get answers.

1: Extinction is depriving the world of a potentially vital resource. Lessening the world in which we live is inherently a bad thing.

2: Be careful the things you say. Children will listen. And as you said the gap between humans and animals isn't large. Cruelty to animals teaches cruelty to humans.

Both are therefore inherently bad things for humanity. Which isn't the same as saying that they are categorical imperatives not to do.

quote:
The problem with humanism as an ideology is that it's big on affirming woolly platitudes about reason and the greater good of humanity, and poor on attempts to use reason to find out what the greater good of humanity is.
Reminds me a lot of the Sermon on the Mount that way. Are you really saying you want something like the Levitical laws as your basis for morality?

quote:
In so far as it has an intellectual justification, it is based upon the value of some aspect of humanity.
In so far as religious morality has an intellectual justification, it is based upon the value of some aspect of God. Therefore no morality has an underlying intellectual justification of the sort you want. Why are you singling out Humanism?

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Justinian:
quote:
Morality based on reciprocity
is not what Jesus taught. "If you give to those from whom you hope to receive, what good is that" (paraphrase). Christ's morality was based on giving with no expectation of reciprocity.

Now you may say he is wrong, but I'm not so sure.

And what does that have to do with anything? You asked what sort of morality you can have without Christianity. I gave an answer - which you are now using as an out of context proof text (I think to avoid engaging with the fact I demolished your entire case). That it is not the same as morality backed by the threat of hellfire and the potential of heaven (as most Christian morality historically has been) is irrelevant. It is a direct answer to your question.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408

 - Posted      Profile for Squibs   Email Squibs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Indeed. By modern standards Lincoln was a flaming racist despite being a visionary for his day.

Lincoln did not exist.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Of course any attempt to do a secular morality has to face the fact that you have to start from some assumptions that are subjective.
A test for a good secular morality has to be that it fits reality and it helps in attaining its intended goals.
And it always has to remain a work in progress subjected to constant revision form experience.

I do not believe that this subjective part of any secular morality is a problem that it does not share with its religious counterparts. Arriving at those "general principles" from the bible is a subjective enterprise.
If not, everyone would agree on what they are.
So for me the claim that the absence of Christianity means nihilism unless naturalists can produce absolute morality out of thin air, makes no sense. Because the "absolute morality" of Christianity is subjective.

Nine times out of ten, when a Christian apologist starts going on about subjective morality and absolute morality, they're talking rubbish. The words 'subjective' and 'absolute' are great generators of confusion - nine times out of ten the person using them doesn't know what they're trying to say.

So, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Let's take an example of a subjective assumption: my daughter is the most special baby in the whole wide world. That's subjective: I cannot expect anyone to agree with me who doesn't already. But at the same time, it's not open to challenge. There's no way anyone is ever going to persuade me to abandon.
Is that the case for any reasonable moral system? Not really. A moral system has be able to persuade people who don't agree with it, and also has to be open to challenge.
I don't think 'subjective' is the right word for what you're trying to say about secular morality. I don't think it's the right word for what you're trying to say about Biblical interpretation either. Because someone can argue about Biblical interpretation.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Let me put it another way: is there any reason at all why a humanist can't support factory farming?

Because it damages the environment and contributes to global warming? Because its cruel? You would need to persuade him not tell him that he can't.
I was using 'can't' in a 'persuade he oughtn't' kind of way.
I've set out my question poorly. I'm not looking for reasons that a humanist, or anyone else, might give for arguing against factory farming. What I'm saying is, suppose another humanist disagrees. They could put forward arguments about human freedom, and making meat more affordable for a wider range of people, and probably arguments about confidence in human reason being able to overcome the challenges posed by environmental damage.
How would a humanist even begin to resolve the dispute? I need to avoid being categorical here, because it's obvious that there are lots of cases where argument doesn't resolve things, even where one side is clearly right. (Darwinism vs creationism, for instance.) But at least there, there are things that the Darwinist can say that the creationist can't dismiss without special pleading.
Or to put it another way, can a humanist construct a roughly coherent moral structure in such a way that he or she would be able to address moral dilemmas without rationalising what he or she would have done anyway?

One of the humanist arguments against religion in public life is that arguments appealing to private revelation cannot be challenged by people who disagree. But how can humanists avoid the charge that their moral arguments are similarly based in private conviction and cannot be challenged?

quote:
quote:

Originally posted by Dafyd:
If someone cares about animal welfare for reasons other than that they aspire to the greater good of humanity, then it's not because they're a humanist.

From a Buddhist perspective the greater good of humanity cannot be separated at all from the good of our environment.
Firstly, I don't think the Buddhist perspective is relevant to humanists who aren't Buddhists, unless it persuades them to become Buddhists. Secondly, at least one Buddhist on these boards (I can't remember who) recently said that Buddhists think all goods are illusory - the greater good of humanity presumably being included in that.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools