|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Christian ethics vs Secular Humanist ethics
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The utilitarian argument is also strong. Some things just seem totally unacceptable regardless of the benefits to the greatest number of people.
Utilitarianism is only one form of consequentialism (which says only that the consequences - not the intention - of your actions determine their goodness).
There are many arguments against utilitarianism. The obvious one is killing a large minority of the population to better the condition of the survivors isn't acceptable. A rights consequentialist might, for example, claim that actions should not breach various rights conferred by society and these count above the greater good for any group of individuals.
The danger of consequentialism is uncertain ends being used to justify bad means. Isaiah Berlin says somewhere that there are few more ominous phrases that "You'll thank me for this one day".
The danger of intentionalism is you end up gazing at your navel wondering whether you might be doing the right thing for the wrong reason - while people starve.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Utilitarianism is only one form of consequentialism (which says only that the consequences - not the intention - of your actions determine their goodness).
The danger of intentionalism is you end up gazing at your navel wondering whether you might be doing the right thing for the wrong reason - while people starve.
Not really disagreeing; more making a difference of emphasis...
Intention isn't the usual contrast with consequentialism. (It seems to me that a theory that says that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends purely on the rightness or wrongness of the intention behind it would be equivalent to consequentialism in its practical effects.) The usual contrast is with deontologists who believe that actions are right or wrong independent of intention (mostly) or (sometimes) consequence. (Even the most hardline deontologist presumably believes that some actions can be rendered right or wrong by the consequences.)
The doctrine of double effect makes the rightness and wrongness of some actions dependent upon intention, but makes the intention with which they're carried out. But that doesn't mean you determine the relevant intentions by introspection. The intentions in question are the reasons you'd give somebody else to persuade them to take the action in question.
[ 16. August 2014, 18:51: 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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Your point is that they are such an embarrassing extreme of Christian that no one on the internet should talk about them because you don't like it.
My point is that using WBC to make wider points about Christianity in general or evangelicalism in general is inaccurate and unhelpful, in exactly the same way that it is mindless and harmful to characterise global Islam in terms of ISIS or Boko Haram.
[ 17. August 2014, 07:22: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I see your Godwin's Law and raise with No true scotsman
Since I have never tried to maintain that the Phelpses are not "real" Christians, I don't see that your Non true scotsman (sic) card has any conceivable relevance to the game.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Which teachings of the Westboro Baptist Church are out of line with mainstream conservative teachings?
I don't know the details of their teaching, but their public methods and practice are neither scriptural nor mainstream.
quote:
And are you going to engage with my main point or is this a distraction?
Your "main point" appears to be that some Christians (like some people amongst the adherents of every worldview or belief system) are unpleasant people, a "main point" which no Christian would dispute, and with which it seems too trivial, banal and self-evident to "engage".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
Dafyd Thanks for the clarification. Though I'm not clear about:
It seems to me that a theory that says that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends purely on the rightness or wrongness of the intention behind it would be equivalent to consequentialism in its practical effects.
Someone might give money to charity because they wanted to be admired as charitable, perhaps because it will get them gets them additional contracts say. And anyway a charitable act may be tax deductable. I would tend to say that it is a good act because of its consequences though the intention is entirely selfish. I guess I'm separating the action from the actor ... and I'm not now sure that makes sense.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Your point is that they are such an embarrassing extreme of Christian that no one on the internet should talk about them because you don't like it.
My point is that using WBC to make wider points about Christianity in general or evangelicalism in general is inaccurate and unhelpful, in exactly the same way that it is mindless and harmful to characterise global Islam in terms of ISIS or Boko Haram.
Unhelpful to whom? For Gay people in the United States they've been very helpful in the same way Bull Connor and the hard line segregationists convinced many to change their minds and support the Civil Rights movement. Another example is the dramatic collapse of anti-Semitism in the United States after World War II. People did not want to be associated with the position shared with the Nazi's even if they had never advocated killing Jews as the Nazi's did.
There's something about hearing people doing loathsome things and justifying their actions with the justifications you've used yourself for your own actions. Westboro Baptists picketing Veteran and Gay Funerals because Gays are condemned by God gave pause to a lot of people attending those funerals who had homophobic views.
No one saying that all Christians are wrecking funerals because they are anti-Gay, but what makes people pause is the similarity of the God hates Fags arguments of the Phelps clan to the ones someone may hear at their Church is what gives pause.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Unhelpful to whom? For Gay people in the United States they've been very helpful in the same way Bull Connor and the hard line segregationists convinced many to change their minds and support the Civil Rights movement. Another example is the dramatic collapse of anti-Semitism in the United States after World War II. People did not want to be associated with the position shared with the Nazi's even if they had never advocated killing Jews as the Nazi's did.
The claim that something however unpleasant will make others rethink their views is true. It may also make those who shared them privately assert them more publicly. This has nothing to do with the question of whether anything useful about Christianity can be deduced from the WBC since it is true about all organisations - moderate or extreme, religious or secular.
Godwin's Law please.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
The claim that something however unpleasant will make others rethink their views is true. It may also make those who shared them privately assert them more publicly.
I haven't seen any examples of people seeing the Phelps clan at work and then announcing that they shared their views to the mourners. Perhaps you can provide some examples.
quote:
This has nothing to do with the question of whether anything useful about Christianity can be deduced from the WBC since it is true about all organisations - moderate or extreme, religious or secular.
Whatever "it" is. quote:
Godwin's Law please.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
You seem to think Godwin's law is a regulation. It isn't.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Another example is the dramatic collapse of anti-Semitism in the United States after World War II. People did not want to be associated with the position shared with the Nazi's even if they had never advocated killing Jews as the Nazi's did.
Godwin's Law please.
It seems a bit ridiculous to cite Godwin's Law as forbidding calling the leadership of the Third Reich "Nazis", or noting that ideas advocated by actual Nazis are unpopular.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I haven't seen any examples of people seeing the Phelps clan at work and then announcing that they shared their views to the mourners. Perhaps you can provide some examples.
But then the WBC isn't a long term problem/embarrassment: it won't recruit new members if other people won't identify with it. If others who see themselves as Christians don't join it can hardly be representative of the religion.
Like most social groups it survives, and maybe grows, as people accept its views, dwindles if they don't. Same as all churches, political parties, ... Why do people join groups if not to because they share some of their attitudes? And do I need examples to show that people in groups will often do things that, as individuals, they wouldn't dare do?
quote:
Whatever "it" is.
The claim that something unpleasant will make others rethink their views but may also make those who shared them privately assert them more publicly.
quote:
You seem to think Godwin's law is a regulation. It isn't.
It is a sign that a worthwhile debate is in dire danger of descending into silliness. And not in a good way.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It seems a bit ridiculous to cite Godwin's Law as forbidding calling the leadership of the Third Reich "Nazis", or noting that ideas advocated by actual Nazis are unpopular.
As above, it isn't a judicial sort of thing, more a law of (human) nature. Egregious as WBC are, comparing them with the Nazi's is silly. I'm an atheist, maybe a nasty one, but I doubt it would be very helpful to compare me to Stalin. Except I also have a mustache.
But my apologies to both if my comment made it seem I was calling for regulation of SoF beyond what we already adhere to.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I haven't seen any examples of people seeing the Phelps clan at work and then announcing that they shared their views to the mourners. Perhaps you can provide some examples.
But then the WBC isn't a long term problem/embarrassment: it won't recruit new members if other people won't identify with it. If others who see themselves as Christians don't join it can hardly be representative of the religion.
If you use the criteria that other people who see themselves as Christian don't join, what denomination is representative? This seems a variation of the True Scotsman. Westboro is only significant to the extent people see it as sharing theological justifications with larger churches. It is true that Westboro isn't significant in the long term because their battle is in the process of being thoroughly lost. An analogy is what happened during the civil rights movement where churches abandoned their former racial justifications for segregation.
quote:
Like most social groups it survives, and maybe grows, as people accept its views, dwindles if they don't. Same as all churches, political parties, ... Why do people join groups if not to because they share some of their attitudes? And do I need examples to show that people in groups will often do things that, as individuals, they wouldn't dare do?
It's been spectacularly unsuccessful in advancing its views. To the extent people see a similarity between their views and those of sincere homophobic views of other Christian churches, it's been a great help in getting some of those other churches to change.
quote:
quote:
Whatever "it" is.
The claim that something unpleasant will make others rethink their views but may also make those who shared them privately assert them more publicly.
They've gotten a few more adherents, but the trend has been greatly in the other direction. I don't know any gay rights activist who is unhappy about their existence. They are the gift that keeps on giving.
quote:
quote:
You seem to think Godwin's law is a regulation. It isn't.
It is a sign that a worthwhile debate is in dire danger of descending into silliness. And not in a good way.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It seems a bit ridiculous to cite Godwin's Law as forbidding calling the leadership of the Third Reich "Nazis", or noting that ideas advocated by actual Nazis are unpopular.
As above, it isn't a judicial sort of thing, more a law of (human) nature. Egregious as WBC are, comparing them with the Nazi's is silly. I'm an atheist, maybe a nasty one, but I doubt it would be very helpful to compare me to Stalin. Except I also have a mustache.
The comparison was actually between their homophobia and anti-Semitism. A violent and loathsome anti-Semitism caused many people and churches to rethink and abandon their own milder anti-Semitism. There has been a popular change in public attitudes toward gay people recently. In their own
quote:
But my apologies to both if my comment made it seem I was calling for regulation of SoF beyond what we already adhere to.
No apology needed. I thought you were arguing in favor of Kaplan Corday's proposed new regulation that Westboro can't be discussed as an example of Christian Homophobia.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Kaplan Corday's proposed new regulation that Westboro can't be discussed as an example of Christian Homophobia.
I don't believe I have mentioned attitudes toward homosexuality.
This was partly to avoid the thread’s being consigned to DH, but since you have taken it upon yourself to raise the issue, on your own head be it.
We can only hope that the Hostocracy will choose to see this as a discussion of the representativeness of WBC which necessarily involves mention of homosexuality/homophobia, rather than a reversion to debate about the topic per se.
I didn't mention it also because WBC, in believing that homosexual activity is anti-scriptural, is not remotely aberrant or anomalous, but stands in the tradition of historic, creedal Christendom, all of which shared this stance until a few decades ago, and most of which continues to do so, with the exception of moribund, liberal, Protestant churches in the West.
Where WBC is sui generis, and totally outside Scripture, evangelicalism and Christianity in general, is in its behaviour and methods, ie taking obvious pleasure in distressing families by vilifying the deceased at funerals.
This would be equally unacceptable if they were attacking the dead for their atheism, or adultery, or drug-taking, rather than their homosexual behaviour.
As it happens, I believe that it is appropriate to mention WBC in the context of homophobia, because there is such a thing as homophobia, and WBC genuinely represents it (as do groups such as those in Uganda who wanted the death penalty for homosexuality).
What WBC does not represent is the attitude of mainstream evangelicalism, ie.a disagreement with the acceptability of homosexual behaviour which does not at the same time hate, fear, exceptionalise or dehumanize gays.
It is equating this latter attitude with homophobia, and dragging in WBC to ram home the point, which is unethical and unacceptable – not to mention lazy.
As I said upthread, citing the two or three dozen family members who make up WBC as representative of Christianity, or even just evangelicalism, is like citing the thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) who make up ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taleban, al-Qaeda, Jamaar Islamiyah etc as representative of the one and a half Muslims in the world.
Smearing anyone who disgrees with homosexual behaviour as a homophobe is also analogous to labelling anyone who opposes any aspect of Israeli domestic or foreign policy as an anti-Semite.
[ 20. August 2014, 01:32: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I'm agree that it's not clear how much discussion can continue without being moved to Dead Horses. I will try to limit the discussion to Westboro and the perception of homophobia.
It is ingenuous to say you haven't raised the issue of attitude toward homosexuality when the Westboro actions exemplify their attitude toward homosexuality. It's not like they're picketing with blank signs.
As for "representative", this is the True Scotsman dance. I do note that the goalposts have moved from "not representative of Christianity" to "not representative of mainstream evangelicalism Christianity".
In an earlier post you claimed that you didn't say they aren't real Christians". Are they "True Christians"? Can you make a list of representative denominations? Does it include those evangelical denominations whose ministers caused the Uganda capital punishment laws to be passed? Are "moribund, liberal, Protestant churches in the West" representative of Christianity? Who gets to vote on which denominations are included?
The problem with your claim that your beliefs do not hate, fear, exceptionalise or dehumanize gays is that other people, especially gays who have been subjected to them think they do. If people see your behavior as hurtful they will see you as homophobic.
When the claim is made that ISIS is representative of Islam, those who consider the claim usually realize that they don't share a theological basis with most adherents or practices. So the claim fails.
You share a theology with Westboro. They do hurtful things as a consequence of that theology. That causes outsiders to contemplate whether you do hurtful things as well.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You share a theology with Westboro. They do hurtful things as a consequence of that theology. That causes outsiders to contemplate whether you do hurtful things as well.
Westboro do hurtful things as a consequence of the theology they share with Kaplan? Not some other bit of theology that they either hold or do not hold? Really? You might like to think about that again.
To turn the example round, this is like saying that when people look at Stalin and Hitler they see what shits all atheists are and wonder whether all other atheists might be potential evil dictators, so all other atheists had better drop their atheism quick because it will cause people to think of them as mass-murderers.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You share a theology with Westboro. They do hurtful things as a consequence of that theology. That causes outsiders to contemplate whether you do hurtful things as well.
Westboro do hurtful things as a consequence of the theology they share with Kaplan? Not some other bit of theology that they either hold or do not hold? Really? You might like to think about that again.
To turn the example round, this is like saying that when people look at Stalin and Hitler they see what shits all atheists are and wonder whether all other atheists might be potential evil dictators, so all other atheists had better drop their atheism quick because it will cause people to think of them as mass-murderers.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I didn't mention it also because WBC, in believing that homosexual activity is anti-scriptural, is not remotely aberrant or anomalous, but stands in the tradition of historic, creedal Christendom, all of which shared this stance until a few decades ago, and most of which continues to do so, with the exception of moribund, liberal, Protestant churches in the West.
Dinghy Sailor: Are you saying that Kaplan Corday belongs to one of those moribund liberal Protestant churches in the West or that his church is in the tradition of Creedal Christendom he attributes to Westboro? I had assumed the latter when I referred to shared theology.
The abuses done by Stalin do cause people to wonder if atheists are evil. They usually conclude not because there's no evidence that other atheists do the same damage. It is unclear whether Hitler was an atheist or a lapsed Catholic.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for "representative", this is the True Scotsman dance.
No it's not.
WBC are true/real Christian but not typical Christian, because they engage in practices not found in either the Bible or practically any other Christian group.
In the same way the North Korean regime is true/real atheist, but not typical atheist, and it would therefore be wrong to accuse all atheists of wanting to persecute Christians as it does, and then accuse them of the "true Scotsman fallacy" when they objected that they were quite different to the Pyongyang government.
quote:
The problem with your claim that your beliefs do not hate, fear, exceptionalise or dehumanize gays is that other people, especially gays who have been subjected to them think they do. If people see your behavior as hurtful they will see you as homophobic.
No-one is entitled to immunity from criticism for false beliefs based on false subjective impressions.
To continue the analogy, there are Christians who are offended and frightened by what atheists say about them, and really believe that it is a precursor to active persecution, but any claim on their part that therefore atheists should not be allowed to publicly disagree with them would, quite rightly, be laughed out of court.
quote:
When the claim is made that ISIS is representative of Islam, those who consider the claim usually realize that they don't share a theological basis with most adherents or practices.
Not true.
Groups such as ISIS share a huge amount of common theology with their co-religionists, including the belief that they are right and non-Muslisms are wrong.
They differ radically on the important issue of terrorism.
In the same way, it is possible to share theological beliefs with WBC and radically differ with them on publicly vilifying homosexuals at their funerals.
Since WBC is the only group which has ever done this, why on earth would anyone have grounds to think that evangelicals are all going to start doing it as well?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for "representative", this is the True Scotsman dance.
No it's not.
WBC are true/real Christian but not typical Christian, because they engage in practices not found in either the Bible or practically any other Christian group.
So do snake-handl;ers - arguably more biblical.
Have you ever heard their preaching - it seems to be excessively about gays and there is very little else on salvation or anything
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for "representative", this is the True Scotsman dance.
No it's not.
WBC are true/real Christian but not typical Christian, because they engage in practices not found in either the Bible or practically any other Christian group.
"True", "Real", "Representative"... So many euphemisms, so little time? So which denominations are "Representative" and which ones are not? Was there an election that I missed?
quote:
In the same way the North Korean regime is true/real atheist, but not typical atheist, and it would therefore be wrong to accuse all atheists of wanting to persecute Christians as it does, and then accuse them of the "true Scotsman fallacy" when they objected that they were quite different to the Pyongyang government.
quote:
The problem with your claim that your beliefs do not hate, fear, exceptionalise or dehumanize gays is that other people, especially gays who have been subjected to them think they do. If people see your behavior as hurtful they will see you as homophobic.
quote:
No-one is entitled to immunity from criticism for false beliefs based on false subjective impressions.
To continue the analogy, there are Christians who are offended and frightened by what atheists say about them, and really believe that it is a precursor to active persecution, but any claim on their part that therefore atheists should not be allowed to publicly disagree with them would, quite rightly, be laughed out of court.
Who is demanding immunity from criticism? You? The gays who are expelled from church? The Christians in Iraq?
quote:
When the claim is made that ISIS is representative of Islam, those who consider the claim usually realize that they don't share a theological basis with most adherents or practices.
Not true.
Groups such as ISIS share a huge amount of common theology with their co-religionists, including the belief that they are right and non-Muslisms are wrong.
They differ radically on the important issue of terrorism.
In the same way, it is possible to share theological beliefs with WBC and radically differ with them on publicly vilifying homosexuals at their funerals.
Since WBC is the only group which has ever done this, why on earth would anyone have grounds to think that evangelicals are all going to start doing it as well?
No one is saying that other groups are going to "criticize" by picketing funerals because they share theology with Westboro. What is being said is that other groups are vilifying gays because of that shared view. The details are best discussed in Dead Horses. For those who believe these other, perhaps "representative" Christians do vilify or damage gays, Westboro is merely an extreme of a continuum of hurtful behavior rather than unrelated. Their extreme behavior has been helpful for Gay people in that it causes others to reflect on their own position.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
For those who believe these other, perhaps "representative" Christians do vilify or damage gays, Westboro is merely an extreme of a continuum of hurtful behavior rather than unrelated.
That's going to be a matter of very subjective opinion.
WBC's picketing funerals with offensive signs is pretty unambiguous, but a church's simply stating, in line with the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the church universal past and present, that it believes homosexual behaviour to be antiscriptural, while unexceptionable, is sure to be interpreted by someone as vilificatory, damaging and hurtful.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So do snake-handl;ers - arguably more biblical.
The only conceivable biblical justifications for snake-handling I can think of are Mark 16:18, in the highly questionable section 16:9-20, and Paul in Acts 28:3-6, which in context seems scarcely prescriptive.
I wish you well in overcoming these exegetical obstacles, however, because I've sat through services in which I would have done anything for a spot of snake-handling to liven things up.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Well I self identify as a Christian secular humanist.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Dinghy Sailor: Are you saying that Kaplan Corday belongs to one of those moribund liberal Protestant churches in the West or that his church is in the tradition of Creedal Christendom he attributes to Westboro? I had assumed the latter when I referred to shared theology.
The abuses done by Stalin do cause people to wonder if atheists are evil. They usually conclude not because there's no evidence that other atheists do the same damage. It is unclear whether Hitler was an atheist or a lapsed Catholic.
So atheists get let off the Stalinist hook by not running gulags but merely sharing his theology, whereas KC is still on the same hook as Westboro because because he shares their Christian theology, despite not picketing gay funerals. That's a little inconsistent don't you think?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
For those who believe these other, perhaps "representative" Christians do vilify or damage gays, Westboro is merely an extreme of a continuum of hurtful behavior rather than unrelated.
That's going to be a matter of very subjective opinion.
WBC's picketing funerals with offensive signs is pretty unambiguous, but a church's simply stating, in line with the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the church universal past and present, that it believes homosexual behaviour to be antiscriptural, while unexceptionable, is sure to be interpreted by someone as vilificatory, damaging and hurtful.
and earlier
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As it happens, I believe that it is appropriate to mention WBC in the context of homophobia, because there is such a thing as homophobia, and WBC genuinely represents it (as do groups such as those in Uganda who wanted the death penalty for homosexuality).
Kind of hard to mention WBC if
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It’s about time that some equivalent of Godwin’s Law was introduced to cover Westboro Baps.
So moving on to those religious leaders who urged the passing of the Uganda laws such as the Anglican Archbishop of Uganda and Scott Lively.
I agree with your calling their actions homophobic but is that simply your subjective opinion?
How do you determine this other than showing damages?
Are their denominations representative of Christianity?
Are they simply "in line with the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the church universal past and present, that it believes homosexual behaviour to be antiscriptural"? If so, does that excuse them with a free pass to damage homosexuals?
The claim that all atheists are evil communists because Stalin was an atheist has been made many times and refuted by evidence. Those that cite homosexual activity as forbidden by God need to also be carefully watched for homophobic actions.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Are they simply "in line with the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the church universal past and present, that it believes homosexual behaviour to be antiscriptural"?
Yes, they are.
quote:
If so, does that excuse them with a free pass to damage homosexuals?
It gives them to right to say that they are wrong, but not to prosecute, let alone imprison or execute them.
In the same way, it gives them the right to disagree with those who do not hold a Niceno-Constantinopolitan trinitarian theology, or a Chalcedonian Christology, but not to persecute them.
quote:
The claim that all atheists are evil communists because Stalin was an atheist has been made many times and refuted by evidence.
No it hasn't - you're just making that up.
The overwhelming majority of people with two brains to rub together know that most atheists, such as those on the Ship, are nothing remotely like Stalin, who represents an extreme.
The real point about Stalin's atheism is that it demonstrates that atheists are not automatically morally superior to religious people, which has sometimes been implied.
quote:
Those that cite homosexual activity as forbidden by God need to also be carefully watched for homophobic actions.
In the same way that your average Western atheists have to be incessantly scrutinised in case they try to revive the OGPU/NKVD?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
So atheists get let off the Stalinist hook by not running gulags but merely sharing his theology, whereas KC is still on the same hook as Westboro because because he shares their Christian theology, despite not picketing gay funerals. That's a little inconsistent don't you think?
Atheists do not have a stated moral code to which they can be measured. Christians do.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The real point about Stalin's atheism is that it demonstrates that atheists are not automatically morally superior to religious people, which has sometimes been implied.
No, they are not automatically superior. However, see my above reply to Dinghy Sailor.
Religious, agnostic, non-theist and atheist are of equal inherent morality. The difference is the playbook. Secular humanists, one variety of atheist, do have a loose playbook, but the rest only what they choose to adopt.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Atheists do not have a stated moral code to which they can be measured. Christians do.
Religious, agnostic, non-theist and atheist are of equal inherent morality. The difference is the playbook. humanists, one variety of atheist, do have a loose playbook, but the rest only what they choose to adopt.
Secular “Secular humanist” is probably close enough to synonymous with “atheist” as far as the milieux (including the Ship) of most of us are concerned.
If the average Western atheist were asked about their moral code, it would almost certainly be something like: “Every individual human being is of inestimable worth and should be treated with respect, dignity and consideration”.
First, any secular humanist with a skerrick of honesty and self-awareness will admit that they don’t live up to these principles (or their particular version of it) in the same way that Christians don’t live up to their standards.
Secondly, no secular humanist that I know of would take the relativist attitude that Stalin, as an atheist, was free to adopt any ethic he chose, and therefore cannot be criticized for any of his actions.
In other words atheists, despite their lack of a “stated moral code”, in practice believe in an absolute morality.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It gives them to right to say that they are wrong, but not to prosecute, let alone imprison or execute them.
In the same way, it gives them the right to disagree with those who do not hold a Niceno-Constantinopolitan trinitarian theology, or a Chalcedonian Christology, but not to persecute them.
Does it give them the right to oppose allowing Homosexuals or non-trinitarians to get a civil marriage? Doesn't that count as damage?
quote:
quote:
The claim that all atheists are evil communists because Stalin was an atheist has been made many times and refuted by evidence.
No it hasn't - you're just making that up.
The overwhelming majority of people with two brains to rub together know that most atheists, such as those on the Ship, are nothing remotely like Stalin, who represents an extreme.
The real point about Stalin's atheism is that it demonstrates that atheists are not automatically morally superior to religious people, which has sometimes been implied.
quote:
Those that cite homosexual activity as forbidden by God need to also be carefully watched for homophobic actions.
In the same way that your average Western atheists have to be incessantly scrutinised in case they try to revive the OGPU/NKVD?
Your ignorance doesn't mean it didn't happen.In the United States this was most seriously attempted in the 1950's by Senator Joseph McCarthy and The House Un-American Activities Committee.
quote:
Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity.
-- Sen. Joseph McCarthy, identifying the "final, all-out battle" as being between atheism and Christianity (not Communism and Capitalism or the Soviet Union and the United States) in his famous address to the Ohio County Women's Republican Club on February 9, 1950. This is the address which launched the terrifying and destructive "McCarthy Era" attacks upon many US citizens.
The attempts failed and many people have concluded that most atheists are not Stalinists so they're not being assumed to be communists. That's not to say the question was never raised, and the assertion was not repeatedly made.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Secondly, no secular humanist that I know of would take the relativist attitude that Stalin, as an atheist, was free to adopt any ethic he chose, and therefore cannot be criticized for any of his actions.
In other words atheists, despite their lack of a “stated moral code”, in practice believe in an absolute morality.
Humans have an innate moral framework. And history shows it to be more relative than absolute.*
Stalin fails his actions failed the framework of the society they affected.
*We, as a species, have the innate drive to help and be good to those we consider "us". It is in defining that "us" that we fall down.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Secondly, no secular humanist that I know of would take the relativist attitude that Stalin, as an atheist, was free to adopt any ethic he chose, and therefore cannot be criticized for any of his actions.
In other words atheists, despite their lack of a “stated moral code”, in practice believe in an absolute morality.
Humans have an innate moral framework. And history shows it to be more relative than absolute.*
Stalin fails his actions failed the framework of the society they affected.
*We, as a species, have the innate drive to help and be good to those we consider "us". It is in defining that "us" that we fall down.
The idea of a framework is interesting, as it may be infilled by different sets of values; so it is a kind of grammar, not a semantics, and the society fills that in with its particular values.
For example, Christians used to burn people - I suppose during that period (a 1000 years?), it was considered virtuous.
I'm not sure if your idea of an innate drive to help is not balanced by an innate aggression and sadism. Well, then, maybe we all need helpful ways of sublimating that sadism, things like soccer I suppose.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
What we need is a broader definition of what includes us. It is in seeing people as other which justifies our mistreatment of them.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That seems quite mysterious to me - why we need to scapegoat and punish others. Oh hell, there are Marxist, psychoanalytic and religious explanations, and maybe they all have a grain of truth.
I suppose I become an I by positing you as other; then that can easily become an alienation.
I think some parts of morality are a 'reaction formation', in other words, they are attempts to neutralize our own hatred.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The claim that all atheists are evil communists because Stalin was an atheist has been made many times and refuted by evidence.
OK, my apologies – I assumed that when you talked about equating atheism with communism you were referring to the present, and not to sixty-four year-old history.
It is certainly not true today.
Yes, there were wild accusations back in the mid-twentieth century by McCarthy and some of his followers that atheist=communist.
(On the subject of conspiracy theories, I can remember, as a young and impressionable evangelical many decades ago, being told by those who were anti-Catholic and anti-communist, that in fact the apparent bitter antipathy between the Vatican and the Kremlin was all for show, and that behind the scenes they were really close allies manipulating world events).
However it is highly questionable whether many people took the automatic identification of atheist and communist seriously even back in 1950.
The situation was vastly more complicated than Christians and anti-communists versus atheists and alleged communist sympathizers.
For a start, a number of leading anti-communists of the time were atheists, such as George Orwell, Sydney Hook and Isaiah Berlin.
Also, there were anti-communists who were anti-McCarthy.
One example is Malcolm Muggeridge ( possibly an atheist himself at the time) who in the face of opposition from the Western left-wing press courageously exposed Stalin’s Ukraine Famine, but who also gleefully ridiculed McCarthy in his article Senator McCarthy McCarthyised, Or The Biter Bit, in his Tread Softly For You Tread On My Jokes.
Another is the US Army which brought McCarthy down.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
Rather than all this to-ing and fro-ing about whether Stalin the Atheist was/is typical of all atheists it would be better if Kaplan Korday started off on a proper factual basis by providing the evidence that Stalin was an atheist.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Rather than all this to-ing and fro-ing about whether Stalin the Atheist was/is typical of all atheists it would be better if Kaplan Korday started off on a proper factual basis by providing the evidence that Stalin was an atheist.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being serious.
There is a one-volume biography of Stalin published in 2004 written by Robert Service.
I haven't read it, but I have read Service's biography of Trotsky, which was good, so as far as I know it is sound.
However, the most recent detailed biographical work on Stalin of which I am aware consists of the two volumes Stalin:The Court Of The Red Tsar (2003) and Young Stalin (2007) by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
In the former he states "...[Stalin] became an atheist in his first year", and in the latter he quotes Stalin's actual words "I became an atheist in the first year".
The reference, of course, is to Stalin's first year at the Tiflis Seminary in 1894, where he was training to become an Orthodox priest.
Yes, he started off Orthodox in the same way as Hitler started out Roman Catholic and Mao Buddhist.
If you have any counter-evidence, from either your own or others' research, that Stalin remained in fact a crypto-believer, I'm sure the world would be fascinated to learn of it.
Richard Dawkins made a desperate attempt to argue that Hitler was a Christian, but he didn't even try in the case of Stalin.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The claim that all atheists are evil communists because Stalin was an atheist has been made many times and refuted by evidence.
OK, my apologies – I assumed that when you talked about equating atheism with communism you were referring to the present, and not to sixty-four year-old history.
It is certainly not true today.
Yes, there were wild accusations back in the mid-twentieth century by McCarthy and some of his followers that atheist=communist.
(On the subject of conspiracy theories, I can remember, as a young and impressionable evangelical many decades ago, being told by those who were anti-Catholic and anti-communist, that in fact the apparent bitter antipathy between the Vatican and the Kremlin was all for show, and that behind the scenes they were really close allies manipulating world events).
However it is highly questionable whether many people took the automatic identification of atheist and communist seriously even back in 1950.
The situation was vastly more complicated than Christians and anti-communists versus atheists and alleged communist sympathizers.
For a start, a number of leading anti-communists of the time were atheists, such as George Orwell, Sydney Hook and Isaiah Berlin.
Also, there were anti-communists who were anti-McCarthy.
One example is Malcolm Muggeridge ( possibly an atheist himself at the time) who in the face of opposition from the Western left-wing press courageously exposed Stalin’s Ukraine Famine, but who also gleefully ridiculed McCarthy in his article Senator McCarthy McCarthyised, Or The Biter Bit, in his Tread Softly For You Tread On My Jokes.
Another is the US Army which brought McCarthy down.
Given Joseph Stalin is not exactly a current political figure you have to go back to see accusations that were made during the cold war.
It was more than what you dismiss as wild accusations and conspiracy theories. People lost their jobs and careers on accusations of atheism, communism and homosexuality notably "The Hollywood Black List"
And no one has said that all anti McCarthy people were communists. So thanks for the straw man. I can add it to the one you did earlier where you were saying that I was saying that atheists on the ship are evil.
I'll take it as a not very good try at a notapology.
And yes, it is certainly not true today and not even for everyone then. that's what I meant when I said
quote:
The claim that all atheists are evil communists because Stalin was an atheist has been made many times and refuted by evidence.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It was more than what you dismiss as wild accusations and conspiracy theories. People lost their jobs and careers on accusations of atheism, communism and homosexuality notably "The Hollywood Black List"
Much, though by no means all, of what McCarthy and his followers dealt with was precisely that - "wild accusations and conspiracy theories".
I am "dismissing" the truth of them, not their seriousness or the fact that they were made.
Agreed, they often resulted in injustices.
What is your point?
quote:
And yes, it is certainly not true today and not even for everyone then. that's what I meant when I said
quote:
The claim that all atheists are evil communists because Stalin was an atheist has been made many times and refuted by evidence.
This could get convoluted, and I will probably regret bringing it up, but here goes:-
I have a suspicion that you think I was dealing with the proposition that atheist always=commnunist, which obviously is not, and never has been, true.
What I was questioning is whether many people believed it even sixty-four years ago, and whether anyone at all believes it today.
"...many times..."? I don't think so.
[ 25. August 2014, 06:30: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It was more than what you dismiss as wild accusations and conspiracy theories. People lost their jobs and careers on accusations of atheism, communism and homosexuality notably "The Hollywood Black List"
Much, though by no means all, of what McCarthy and his followers dealt with was precisely that - "wild accusations and conspiracy theories".
I am "dismissing" the truth of them, not their seriousness or the fact that they were made.
Agreed, they often resulted in injustices.
What is your point?
My point is when serious harm is done by the government their charges are not "wild accusations". That trivializes the persecution.
quote:
quote:
And yes, it is certainly not true today and not even for everyone then. that's what I meant when I said
quote:
The claim that all atheists are evil communists because Stalin was an atheist has been made many times and refuted by evidence.
This could get convoluted, and I will probably regret bringing it up, but here goes:-
I have a suspicion that you think I was dealing with the proposition that atheist always=commnunist, which obviously is not, and never has been, true.
What I was questioning is whether many people believed it even sixty-four years ago, and whether anyone at all believes it today.
"...many times..."? I don't think so.
Again you try to trivialize it. Enough people believed it to support a political movement that did a lot of damage to a lot of people. How many is adequate for you? And while communism has lowered as the mark of evil one survey showed
quote:
40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society", putting atheists well ahead of every other group, with the next highest being Muslims (26%) and homosexuals (23%).
As for your lack of thought...
Discrimination against Atheists in the United States shows the number of state constitutions which limit the rights of atheists. That's not a one time happenstance of wild conspiracy theory. Obviously this predates the communists, but atheist=evil has been stated any times and often acted on.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
My point is when serious harm is done by the government their charges are not "wild accusations".
Non sequitur.
When "wild accusations" (which is what indeed many of them were) cause "harm", is does not follow that in retrospect they cease to be describable as "wild accusations".
quote:
Again you try to trivialize it. Enough people believed it to support a political movement that did a lot of damage to a lot of people.
To exercise a healthy scepticism is not the same as to "trivialise", a word which I suspect you are employing for its emotive impact rather than its descriptive appropriateness.
The point is not whether or not many believed it, but that enough people in positions of influence did, producing distinctly non-trivial consequences such as the execution of Ethel Rosenberg.
quote:
40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society",
It's hard to keep up with you, Palimpsest, when you move the goal-posts (an activity which could conceivably fall under the rubric of "lack of thought").
The question was whether people today equate atheism with communism.
I have not made the slightest reference to the issue of whether or not Americans today are suspicious of atheists, and am quite ready to believe that some are, though I would be interested in the provenance of your "one survey".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
