State monopoly over violence | How is/should the legitimacy be defined?

[ctuser1]

General discussion:

As for ranking of rights, the problem is that a court might pick one right in one context and another right in another.  For example, a court might say that a baker who has a business open to the public is required to cater a gay wedding (non-discrimination wins) but not required to write "Bill & Ted Married!!" on the cake (no compelled speech wins -- too directly connected with the artistic portion of the business).  Human life is complex so I don't think we can always boil it down to "right 1 beats right 2 always."

This is a good point. Thanks.

Speaking of this, I think sometimes when you say people are making a "faith based claim" what you really mean is they are making "an unproven metaphysical claim."

Agree on this one too. "an unproven metaphysical claim" is more neutral than "faith based claim" and is possibly clearer in meaning too.

[LWYRUP]

Speaking of this, I think sometimes when you say people are making a "faith based claim" what you really mean is they are making "an unproven metaphysical claim."

Agree on this one too. "an unproven metaphysical claim" is more neutral than "faith based claim" and is possibly clearer in meaning too.

I mean, if someone is literally saying "we should ban [something they don't like] "because the Bible says so"" then you don't need to beat around the bush and can get straight to the point.  But if someone is arguing based on abstract principles and not specifically referencing religion, then it would make the debate cleaner to do the same. 

To veer away from law and actually delve specifically into religion, there is a theory in Catholic philosophy that everything the Church teaches about morality should also be able to be justified outside of its religious texts, through reason, observation, logic, etc.  Now, everyone is free to dissent from that as they wish (and in fact I personally disagree with the Church in various ways), but you will occasionally run across people who will happily debate you on moral issues without saying much or anything about religion at all while suspiciously aligning with what you would identify as the religious position.  That's possibly what's going on.  In that case, they are basically debating you on your preferred terms, so you may as well go with it. 

Personally, I think there is a lot of wisdom in Christian philosophy, but if someone explicitly rejects it as an authority source it's pretty futile to try to make them do so, though certain parts of Christianity are still pretty heavily encoded in our cultural memory so you are probably doing some of that yourself anyways without realizing it.  (Not really sure Attila the Hun thought much about fundamental rights one way or another.) 

I also think metaphysical claims fundamentally can't be proven, they can only be reasoned and of course various people come out different on that.  (And yes, after you've done all the reasoning you want, to adhere to a religion you need to asset to certain statements of belief (faith) that may be based in things like reason, logic, intuition, historical texts or whatnot (to the extent you find the sources compelling) but fundamentally can't be proven.  (And yes, many people assent to statements of faith that have been disproven (e.g., age of the earth), but plenty of people do plenty of irrational things not related to religion and that's all a story for another day.))

So I just always act under the assumption that I can explain my reasoning to people if they care, but I can't really *prove* anything about these issues to anyone one way or another and so everyone's got to just make up their own mind.  I am also cheerfully supportive of trying to create a system where everyone just leaves each other alone as much as we possibly can without delving into anarchy.  So I tend to get along reasonably well with people who think differently than me as long as they hear me out first (and aren't trying to impose THEIR metaphysical world view on ME either).

I do recognize that many religious people don't really have all of this mental training or perspective and so can understand why you may find them incredibly irritating.  But to be fair there are plenty of incredibly irritating atheist type people too.  I think who you find most irritating probably depends on exactly where you personally sit. 

[ctuser1]

I do recognize that many religious people don't really have all of this mental training or perspective and so can understand why you may find them incredibly irritating.  But to be fair there are plenty of incredibly irritating atheist type people too.  I think who you find most irritating probably depends on exactly where you personally sit.

Ultimately this goes much more than just mental training or perspective.

Some of the core tenets that almost all religious (Christian/Muslim/Jewish, other "religions" are different) believe in is:
1. Their version of god is the only true God.
2. Anyone who does not believe in that version of God are unbelievers who are going to hell.
3. The best thing that can happen to the unbelievers is to have their soul resurrected by faith in that specific religion.

If you stand back and think about it, this specific brand of "unproven metaphysical claim" is remarkably arrogant and presumptuous.

And yet, the religious has waged war against the stupid non-believers for millennia based on these "unproven metaphysical claim"s. Any time even a slightest degree of push-back is offered - you get persecution complex and other variety of hysteria. Just in this discussion, when I go back I see religious finds the notion offensive that they have no right to assume others may not subscribe to their "faith" in when life begins, and that they have no right to impose their faith on those non-believers. It's as if their belief in their ability to impose their morality on everyone just comes standard from factory, anything else is "war on Christianity".

It would be funny if it was not so dangerous.

You seem to profess that your morality only dictates your (and possibly your family's) life and beliefs. That alone makes you a very odd duck for a "religious person". I have had interactions with or otherwise encountered, maybe, half a dozen others like you in my entire life.

[GuitarStv]

Roe discussion:

I don't think "unborn human life" is faith based.  Note I didn't say "human being" or "personhood" or "baby."  A fetus is life because it is alive; it is living.  It is human because its genome is homo sapiens.  I do agree it is not a wholly independent form of life because it is connected with a mother's body and for most of the pregnancy cannot survive alone.   I am not trying to make any metaphysical claims about "personhood" here, just "homo sapiens life" sounds weird to my liberal arts brain.

My problem with this reasoning is that it can be applied to other things.  Like sperm.

Sperm is 'unborn human life' by all of your criteria.  It is human because it's genome is homo sapiens.  It is not a wholly independent form of life (requires an ova to continue to develop) and cannot survive on it's own.  But every condom user then becomes a mass murderer of unborn humans.  And that seems pretty goofy.  :P

The issue is where you claim that a fetus is a 'human life'.  A fetus is not human any more than sperm is human.  I think that there's more to being human that simply having human DNA and not being dead.

[LWYRUP]

My problem with this reasoning is that it can be applied to other things.  Like sperm.

Sperm is 'unborn human life' by all of your criteria.  It is human because it's genome is homo sapiens.  It is not a wholly independent form of life (requires an ova to continue to develop) and cannot survive on it's own.  But every condom user then becomes a mass murderer of unborn humans.  And that seems pretty goofy.  :P

I agree.  It was not my intent to make any statements about personhood or murder.  I think we are getting caught up in different conceptions of what I meant when I used the word "human."  I don't view those distinctions as relevant to my reasoning above.  If I could rewrite my argument, I would just write "fetal life" and avoid the issue entirely. 

A fetus is not human any more than sperm is human. 

Note that this fundamentally a metaphysical claim as well.  Which in my view is not improper, but I mention this to point out that both theists and atheists make metaphysical claims.  At some point, it's unavoidable. 

The Supreme Court's decisions consistently recognize that there are competing metaphysical claims here and that the Court's decisions are not an endorsement of any particular metaphysical claim.  In this particular situation, I think that's wise. 

[LWYRUP]

Ok, there's a lot to unpack here but I'll try my best.

Some of the core tenets that almost all religious (Christian/Muslim/Jewish, other "religions" are different) believe in is:
1. Their version of god is the only true God. 

Sure.  Nothing wrong with that.  When you make a truth claim, you are inherently stating that other truth claims that contradict your truth claims are false.  (If you say "X is true," then by necessity you are stating "not X is not true"."  If I say "basketball is the best sport, and LeBron James is the best overall player" and you say "basketball is the best sport, and Michael Jordan is the best overall player" then we are making competing truth claims.  I am implicitly saying that your view that Michael Jordan is the best player is false.  In this case, these truth claims are both reasonable but also impossible to determine via a some mathematical proof or scientific lab experiment.  That doesn't make them inherently improper or wrong beliefs (though it may make them an improper subject for the journal "Nature" or as the justification for Supreme Court decision).  It also means that people are going to at some point need to just agree to disagree about them. 

Other relevant points:

There are a lot of commonalities between the world's major religions, but also a lot of differences.  So the way I would frame it is that "I believe my conception of God most closely reflects reality, but of course I also realize that the sum of human knowledge about God is likely insignificant compared to the infinite reality.  To the extent my conception does not match someone else's, we could just be emphasizing different facets of the same phenomenon.  To the extent our conceptions conflict in a manner that appears irreconcilable, then inherently of course I believe that my conception is true and their conception is false and that is required by logic (otherwise, neither of us would believe it) and not inherently offensive."

When you think of all the various truth claims that people make in their lives, I am fairly certain that every single person on earth is right about at least some truth claims and wrong about others.   So we could all use a little humility here.

Loads of people around the world believe in loads of things that are obviously wrong.  And such will forever be the case.  You are of course free to correct errors as you wish, but I am increasingly realizing that at some point we should probably just let a lot of it go and focus our attention just on the stuff that's causing the most harm to others at the moment. 

2. Anyone who does not believe in that version of God are unbelievers who are going to hell. 

I think this is less common than you think it is.  I suppose we could ague that view was more common historically, but even that is painting with a very broad brush.  This is what some religious people believe but not others.  FWIW, if you are a Catholic priest and you state this, you can be excommunicated (and this in fact happened to a Boston priest several decades ago).

There are also many people who are members of denominations where this may be the doctrine but they don't personally agree with that portion of the doctrine.

3. The best thing that can happen to the unbelievers is to have their soul resurrected by faith in that specific religion.

I don't think is universally true.  Even if it was, I don't find it inherently offensive.  I am not offended if a Muslim person wants to convert me.  Just as long as he treats me with respect and doesn't persecute me, he can believe whatever he likes. 

And yet, the religious has waged war against the stupid non-believers for millennia based on these "unproven metaphysical claim"s.

Lots of wars in history, for lots of reasons.  I consider the implications behind your argument basically disproven by the 100 million plus bodycount from atheistic communism in the last century.  I don't need to get into a debate about whose the biggest meany.  It's simply enough to dispose of the argument. 

Any time even a slightest degree of push-back is offered - you get persecution complex and other variety of hysteria.

In my opinion, persecution complex and hysteria are not things that are limited to theists or discussions about religion.  It seems to me like you are often stating things you don't like about human nature and ascribing them to religion. 

It's as if their belief in their ability to impose their morality on everyone just comes standard from factory, anything else is "war on Christianity". 

A subject that probably deserves its own thread.  My short view is that there was once a common culture with shared metaphysical assumptions and a legal system based around that.  Which is not inherently improper (simply put, freedom of religion =/= freedom from religion).  There has been secular pushback, and then certain Christians have engaged in what to them feels like a largely defensive war, while other Christians have not really been involved or even taken the secular side on many issues.  My personal view is that it is futile to try to impose a metaphysical framework by law that most people don't agree with, and also generally I support freedom of conscience. 

I don't want to derail the thread, but there are plenty of examples of non-religious secular progressives try to basically legally enforce their beliefs on everyone else.  If you don't see that, then I am guessing you just won't see it so it's probably not worth it to explain it to you as you or other posters will try to make me separately litigate each issue and many of them are contentious and the trolls are going to come out.  To cut to the chase, I am generally pro everyone "taking a damn chill pill and leaving each other the alone" except to the extent that this creates major complications for the orderly functioning of society. 

You and I have discussed "culture wars" in other contexts.  I'm not really a fan.  I prefer to channel conversations towards constructive compromise.  If you wish to do battle with your ideological opponents, that's a different temperament and I won't object to your doing it but you also shouldn't expect me to somehow disavow them if they are battling you back (unless of course they are totally out of line and the rules of common decency kick in).  But mostly, those arguments are between ya'll, and we can just try to handle things differently. 

You seem to profess that your morality only dictates your (and possibly your family's) life and beliefs. That alone makes you a very odd duck for a "religious person". I have had interactions with or otherwise encountered, maybe, half a dozen others like you in my entire life.

I am making a legal claim there, not a metaphysical one, and my position is based primarily on trying to construct an efficient and fair system where millions of people from a wide variety of backgrounds and with a wide variety of beliefs can get along together.  Even if religion disappeared entirely tomorrow, this sort of latitude would still be necessary because there is fundamentally not a singular cohesive culture in the USA and it's probably too large for that ever to be the case. 

I do in fact believe moral laws are objective and not culturally or individually constructed (but I recognize the wide disagreement among intelligent people on both whether this is true and how one can determine objective moral laws).  I don't think it's fair or workable to try to precisely map the moral framework of any particular religion onto our legal system.  I also don't think it's fair to try to bar discussion of a moral claim that happens to be aligned with a major religious system.  (Aside:  Quite a lot of the Christian moral framework is in fact encoded into our culture and legal system, but many people don't recognize that or just don't object in the same way others, such as followers of Stalin who fundamentally didn't really grok with the whole "individual rights barring state action" philosophy, would.  Aide two:  The incoherence of the secular position regarding the cultural construction of moral codes is a major factor in why I decided switch back from agnostic / deist to Christian.  It's a fascinating and complex subject and I don't claim to be an expert, but briefest defense possible is:  "Moral laws are either objective or they don't exist (and the "law of the jungle" does).  If there are objective moral laws, there must be a lawgiver.")

I suspect in your previous debates you are encountering the loudest, most abrasive religious people, just as religious people are irritated by the loudest and most abrasive non-religious people.  There are huge swarths of people that fall into the "mildly or moderately religious" category.  In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that classification describes a majority of humanity, though I suppose that's debatable.

There is also a hidden subtext behind many of my posts, which is basically "remember that most people are only of median intelligence."  I don't say it quite so clearly because it seems not nice.
 Again, if religion disappeared tomorrow, this issue won't and in my personal opinion the disappearance of formal religions wouldn't make things any better.  I can assure you I am well aware of all sorts of unsavory things religious people do, where we disagree is that I think they are "human nature" things that I also see in secular people. 

You can cheerfully consider the vast majority of theists benighted idiots if you wish.  If you use that to just dismiss the work and views of say, Fyodor Dostoevsky, as a result, then that is a shame, for you and for humanity.

I need to openly admit I ignored my kids for quite a chunk of time to put this together and so may not be able to respond as completely to replies.  I did want to at least outline this is you could appreciate how it might be non-crazy for a well-educated person to adhere to a formal religion.  I'll do the best I can at responding, but for some things the answer might need to be "talk to me again when my kids are in college and I'm FIRED and we'll dig into it more then."

[ctuser1]

I started writing out a response with my point of view in an exposition style. But then, it sounded too much like an attack on religion. That is not useful. So this is take 2 trying to understand your POV rather than writing a lengthy exposition.

I have some questions. If/when you get the time and have patience, I will be grateful if you could please clarify.

Since I am trying my best to not make this an adversarial discussion, I will state my "guess"/"hypothesis" right away, and then explain the reasoning.

I suspect that you and I mean different things when we use the word "religion":
1. In your mind, it is a platonic entity that spiritually informs and inspires you, with little attachment to any misdeeds committed in it's name. Let's call it religion#1.
2. In my mind, a platonic entity has zero relevance to real world. How it is generally practiced is how it is to be interpreted at any given time and place. Let's call it religion#2.

I have nothing against #1. I generally have quite a lot against all forms of "organized religion"#2.

Why do I suspect we have the above terminology difference?

How do you reconcile this

There are a lot of commonalities between the world's major religions, but also a lot of differences.  So the way I would frame it is that "I believe my conception of God most closely reflects reality, but of course I also realize that the sum of human knowledge about God is likely insignificant compared to the infinite reality.  To the extent my conception does not match someone else's, we could just be emphasizing different facets of the same phenomenon.  To the extent our conceptions conflict in a manner that appears irreconcilable, then inherently of course I believe that my conception is true and their conception is false and that is required by logic (otherwise, neither of us would believe it) and not inherently offensive."

With John 3:18:https://www.bibleref.com/John/3/John-3-18.html#commentary
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

If you believe in religion #1, then the answer is easy. You are inspired by the scriptures, but do not consider them infallible "word of god", and do not believe in certain parts of it.

Am I correct in my guess?

I don't think is universally true.  Even if it was, I don't find it inherently offensive.  I am not offended if a Muslim person wants to convert me.  Just as long as he treats me with respect and doesn't persecute me, he can believe whatever he likes.

Perhaps we have different sensibilities. I am surprised I am typing this. Generally I am one of the least sensitive person in the room. I had a couple of old ladies from a nearby Johnnie Walker church (match the initials) come by every other week on Sunday for 2 years. First few weeks I was very polite and invited them in and offered them Coke. I gave them a "funny nickname" in my mind ("Johnnie Walker" duh!).  After 6 months or so of this repeating, I started hating the guts of the red label in the closet. I seriously said "thank god" when I moved from that address. Perhaps I have been over-sensitized after that. I think it is safe to say that if I find it offensive, a large chunk of the population will, as well. So, it probably is a bad form initiate an engagement like this.

It gets worse if I am a devout Muslim/Jew/Hindu/Buddhist encountering a Christian missionary (or the other way around). The first implicit statement the missionary makes before opening his mouth is "you are worshiping a false god. convert or else!". I don't think you can claim everyone who is religious will consider it non-offensive.

And then there is downright immoral stuff in the name of missionary activities like this: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/southasia/2018/11/tourist-killed-arrow-shooting-andaman-island-tribesmen-181121074347304.html
Apparently this dude was okay to spread any germs he carried to this tribe that has never had any outside human contact.

Lots of wars in history, for lots of reasons.  I consider the implications behind your argument basically disproven by the 100 million plus bodycount from atheistic communism in the last century.  I don't need to get into a debate about whose the biggest meany.  It's simply enough to dispose of the argument.

Was communism supposed to not be a religion#2?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14690760500317727?journalCode=ftmp20

FYI, my POV most closely resembles this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism in the domain of philosophy. I did not arrive at it from reading philosophy, but through Mathematics. I encountered Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in my undergrad CS coursework (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems) and started thinking what it means to have a mathematical proof that *any* human constructed logic system (="formal system") is bound to be incomplete.

So, even if you think Communism was NOT a religion#2, it would still count as a set of grand narratives that is destined to be incomplete. Religion#2 is just a subset of grand narratives that are destined to be incomplete.

Interestingly, Religion#1 that inspires rather than prescribes is not constrained by the boundaries of a "formal system". So, no objections to it!

Aide two:  The incoherence of the secular position regarding the cultural construction of moral codes is a major factor in why I decided switch back from agnostic / deist to Christian.  It's a fascinating and complex subject and I don't claim to be an expert, but briefest defense possible is:  "Moral laws are either objective or they don't exist (and the "law of the jungle" does).  If there are objective moral laws, there must be a lawgiver."

If and when you have time, I would like to understand more about the incoherence of the secular position. Note however, *any* formal system that operates based on axioms and rules of inference is mathematically proven to be incomplete. So, are you sure you aren't railing against a mathematical truth here? And that religious forms of morality would NOT have such incoherence?

And what's wrong with morality legislated by lawmakers as opposed to being ordained by a lawgiver?

[ctuser1]

Also: read Hobbes.

Thx. will do. For some weird reason I had not before.

Long weekend, homebound, so went over to the Gutenberg project to read Leviathan.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm#link2HCH0013

Hobbes has a really dark view of human nature.

He was contemporaneous with the English Civil War. I wonder how he applied his concept of the absolute sovereign during and after the civil war!!

Needless to say, I am finding his ideas to be pretty unsettling, to the point of being unacceptable in any modern democratic society.

Whose ideas formed the underpinnings for the US constitution? From my reading so far, it can't be Hobbes!

Or, was it all just a set of practical compromise(s) that happened to be so much better than whatever any contemporary philosopher(s) could think of? Or, perhaps I'm just too biased who can't step out of his frame of reference?

[GuitarStv]

As a Muslim, you're not supposed to actively try to convert someone else.  I believe this is also true for Buddhism.  Never encountered Jewish people attempting to convert disbelievers either, but I've got less knowledge of that religion.

[ctuser1]

As a Muslim, you're not supposed to actively try to convert someone else.  I believe this is also true for Buddhism.  Never encountered Jewish people attempting to convert disbelievers either, but I've got less knowledge of that religion.

>> As a Muslim, you're not supposed to actively try to convert someone else.
Again, you are talking about Islam#1 (as I defined the two separate definitions of the word religion).

If you peel back the false equivalence of the official history and try to look at actual data-points, Islam, like any other organized religion, leaves a large body-count behind. The point of sword is a very active and very effective mechanism to convert disbelievers, irrespective of what is "supposed to" happen.

>> I believe this is also true for Buddhism.
Buddhism does not have a concept of "dis-believer". It started as a "protestant" Hinduism claiming that the Hindu (it wasn't called that back then in 6th Century BC) concept of "self" was all bs. (I can't read Pali. This is all per my third hand reading of Buddhist ideas).
Even so, look up the situation of the rohingya in Myanmar for evidence of how *even* that kind of philosophy can be turned into an evil grand narrative just like any other.   

[GuitarStv]

I was responding to LWYRUP's comment when he said he wouldn't be offended if a Muslim person tried to convert him.  Christianity is a bit more aggressive it's it's attempts to convert others that other religions I've studied.  (Not to say that any other religion is without it's own faults and problems.)

[John Galt incarnate!]

I am making a legal claim there, not a metaphysical one, and my position is based primarily on trying to construct an efficient and fair system where millions of people from a wide variety of backgrounds and with a wide variety of beliefs can get along together.  Even if religion disappeared entirely tomorrow, this sort of latitude would still be necessary because there is fundamentally not a singular cohesive culture in the USA and it's probably too large for that ever to be the case.



Your "sort of latitude"  echoes the Court's rejection of "absolutist views" in County of Allegheny.


"Only adoption of the absolutist views that either all government involvement with religion is permissible, or that none is, can provide a bright line in all cases. That price for clarity is neither exacted nor permitted by the Constitution."

[LWYRUP]

@ctuser1, I do think that when we both think of religion, we think of wildly different things.  When I think of religion I think:

• Many theists find it meaningful to engage in spiritual practices (prayer, meditation, reading religious works, taking a long walk and reflecting on one's place the universe).
• People can do these things in a solitary fashion, but people are social animals and often enjoy doing them in a group.
• When people do these things in a group, there is often conflict or miscommunications about what they mean or how to do them.
• To attempt to resolve this, these groups establish statements of beliefs or principles and formal systems of worship.
• Organized religion is simply a form of group theistic spiritual practice based around a reasonably unified set of beliefs and systems of worship.

That's it!  If you find theistic spiritual practices worthwhile, and you are a sociable person, you may benefit from joining a religion.  Or maybe not.  If you do join one, you should probably choose one relatively well aligned with your own theistic views because you'll likely make more spiritual and intellectual progress that way. 

I don't think communism is a religion.  I suppose you could say that is an ideological system that makes certain metaphysical claims that seem to parallel religious structures.  I do understand what you are saying about communism though.  I've seen that argument before and I do find the impulse that many (most) people have to establish their lives around abstract metaphysical principles and how that interacts with group dynamics to be a fascinating subject of study.  I think most intellectual people have an innate fear of large groups of close-minded ideological extremists, as they probably should.  But I think that's a human nature thing, not a theism thing.  When I say I am religious, all I am personally saying is that I am a theist and spiritual and have decided to channel many of my spiritual practices within an organized community. 

I think of religion as an open system in a free society because of course any person is free to critique any or all of the religious system as he or she chooses, and most do.  There are oceans of current and historical critiques of Christianity, for example.  To become a member of religion, you do need to then accept a certain set of beliefs.  As you might expect, I don't find this inherently problematic.  First, you can still think through these issues and change your mind and join another religion or no religion or even found your own.  Second, within the community, establishing those first principles creates cohesion that allows people to communicate better about other things.  While Catholicism has tons of flaws (trust me, I know), there is an enormous amount of discussion, study, debate and disagreement within its philosophical system.  And many other religions have less rigid ideological systems to begin with.  I do understand though that certain religions (including my own) have manifested as closed systems in certain times and places in history. 

I did well in math in early college but then moved on to liberal arts (probably a mistake, I suspect I'd have a more money with less blood, sweat and tears now if I made a different choice) so I am sure you know way more about mathematics then me.  But your conclusions from your mathematical studies make sense to me.  I would logically expect human knowledge to be incomplete.  The universe is infinite, the human mind is finite.  No matter how much more we learn (individually or collectively), we will always be scratching the surface. 

I don't think all religious impulses throughout history are good, and I expect you don't think all religious impulses throughout history are bad.  And religion has been intertwined with things like economic systems, class struggles, nationalism, etc. in all sorts of interesting ways and so various people for reasons good and nefarious have used religion as a means to other ends (and in turn religious impulses have impacted these systems as well for better or for worse), which makes discussions about these subjects even more complicated.  Oh well.  History is complicated and life is complicated.  I do personally think that religion on average tends to channel human nature towards more constructive ends then if people were just left to their own devices without group spiritual practice.  But then of course I would think that.  You recognize the many bad things that various people have done in the name of religion and don't like it and probably wonder why I am not really bothered by it.  My answer basically is "Yeah, human nature is pretty shitty, right?"

As for the Bible, I think it was inspired by God but written by humans.  I don't think I'd say I "disagree with parts of it."  I'd say that I consider parts of it to contain historical and metaphysical truths and parts of it to contain things like metaphors and myths.  The Old Testament I consider basically to be a history of the evolution of a monotheistic moral system, and an unbelievably sophisticated one at that for a tribe of desert nomads.  Genesis in particular contains a number of myths (which aren't "untrue"  -- they illustrate profound underlying truths known from the beginning of humanity passed down orally for millennia through mystical campfire stories, basically).  The Old Testament is not intended to be some sort of manual on how to live life now.  I don't agree with the efforts of some Christians to "demythologize" every single supernatural event in the Bible, though.  Biblical interpretation is its own can of worms, and there are people that think pretty much everyone is hell and others that think pretty much everyone is in heaven and all things in between. 

As for the last part, it's been years since I studied philosophy in depth (I spend most of my time reading boring legal documents chasing toddlers now), so I'm really rusty on this. 

• First, the easy one.  Our legal code should be loosely based on our moral code, but lawgivers can't legislate morality.  Speeding is illegal but frequently not immoral, and secretly sleeping with your best friend's wife is not illegal but is immoral.  (My views.)  There will always be differences between our criminal code and our moral one.
  
• Second, the hard one.  If morality (not our legal system, but our culture's moral code) is simply culturally constructed, and you recognize that, then why is it logical to follow that culturally constructed moral code when it is not in your self-interest?  The logical thing to do would be for everyone to just act solely in their self-interest at all time (and, in particular, to *pretend* to agree with the culture's moral code to appear sociable while *actually* just ignoring it whenever it appeared like you wouldn't get caught).  Yet humans are CONSTANTLY constructing and deconstructing and reconstructing and following moral codes that have WAAAAY more going on than "act in your perceived self-interest at all times, including pretending to not do so when socially useful."  As someone who believes humans are naturally born with the desire to pursue (objective) good and avoid (objective) evil, while being subject to enormous temptations and weakness, I find these continual efforts (which would be considered a ridiculous waste of time by a real ubermensch) to be evidence of these innate impulses.  Basically, I think humans just can't help acting like God exists, so they may as well realize that and look for some guidance. 

But that second bullet point is basically a somewhat flippant consolidation of various far more sophisticated philosophical arguments between people way smarter than me.  So if you are really curious the source material will explain this way better than I can. 

[ctuser1]

@ctuser1, I do think that when we both think of religion, we think of wildly different things.  When I think of religion I think:

Many theists find it meaningful to engage in spiritual practices (prayer, meditation, reading religious works, taking a long walk and reflecting on one's place the universe).
People can do these things in a solitary fashion, but people are social animals and often enjoy doing them in a group.
When people do these things in a group, there is often conflict or miscommunications about what they mean or how to do them.
To attempt to resolve this, these groups establish statements of beliefs or principles and formal systems of worship.
Organized religion is simply a form of group theistic spiritual practice based around a reasonably unified set of beliefs and systems of worship.

That's it!  If you find theistic spiritual practices worthwhile, and you are a sociable person, you may benefit from joining a religion.  Or maybe not.  If you do join one, you should probably choose one relatively well aligned with your own theistic views because you'll likely make more spiritual and intellectual progress that way.

I don't think communism is a religion.  I suppose you could say that is an ideological system that makes certain metaphysical claims that seem to parallel religious structures.  I do understand what you are saying about communism though.  I've seen that argument before and I do find the impulse that many (most) people have to establish their lives around abstract metaphysical principles and how that interacts with group dynamics to be a fascinating subject of study.  I think most intellectual people have an innate fear of large groups of close-minded ideological extremists, as they probably should.  But I think that's a human nature thing, not a theism thing.  When I say I am religious, all I am personally saying is that I am a theist and spiritual and have decided to channel many of my spiritual practices within an organized community.

I think of religion as an open system in a free society because of course any person is free to critique any or all of the religious system as he or she chooses, and most do.  There are oceans of current and historical critiques of Christianity, for example.  To become a member of religion, you do need to then accept a certain set of beliefs.  As you might expect, I don't find this inherently problematic.  First, you can still think through these issues and change your mind and join another religion or no religion or even found your own.  Second, within the community, establishing those first principles creates cohesion that allows people to communicate better about other things.  While Catholicism has tons of flaws (trust me, I know), there is an enormous amount of discussion, study, debate and disagreement within its philosophical system.  And many other religions have less rigid ideological systems to begin with.  I do understand though that certain religions (including my own) have manifested as closed systems in certain times and places in history.

I did well in math in early college but then moved on to liberal arts (probably a mistake, I suspect I'd have a more money with less blood, sweat and tears now if I made a different choice) so I am sure you know way more about mathematics then me.  But your conclusions from your mathematical studies make sense to me.  I would logically expect human knowledge to be incomplete.  The universe is infinite, the human mind is finite.  No matter how much more we learn (individually or collectively), we will always be scratching the surface.

I don't think all religious impulses throughout history are good, and I expect you don't think all religious impulses throughout history are bad.  And religion has been intertwined with things like economic systems, class struggles, nationalism, etc. in all sorts of interesting ways and so various people for reasons good and nefarious have used religion as a means to other ends (and in turn religious impulses have impacted these systems as well for better or for worse), which makes discussions about these subjects even more complicated.  Oh well.  History is complicated and life is complicated.  I do personally think that religion on average tends to channel human nature towards more constructive ends then if people were just left to their own devices without group spiritual practice.  But then of course I would think that.  You recognize the many bad things that various people have done in the name of religion and don't like it and probably wonder why I am not really bothered by it.  My answer basically is "Yeah, human nature is pretty shitty, right?"

As for the Bible, I think it was inspired by God but written by humans.  I don't think I'd say I "disagree with parts of it."  I'd say that I consider parts of it to contain historical and metaphysical truths and parts of it to contain things like metaphors and myths.  The Old Testament I consider basically to be a history of the evolution of a monotheistic moral system, and an unbelievably sophisticated one at that for a tribe of desert nomads.  Genesis in particular contains a number of myths (which aren't "untrue"  -- they illustrate profound underlying truths known from the beginning of humanity passed down orally for millennia through mystical campfire stories, basically).  The Old Testament is not intended to be some sort of manual on how to live life now.  I don't agree with the efforts of some Christians to "demythologize" every single supernatural event in the Bible, though.  Biblical interpretation is its own can of worms, and there are people that think pretty much everyone is hell and others that think pretty much everyone is in heaven and all things in between.

I'd mostly agree with what you wrote here.

I'm not very comfortable with your refusal to take a black and white stand against a specific passage in I find clearly problematic, because such equivocation is a tool used by the religious to inflict much damage in their ‘war against humanity’ (if I was being as dramatic as some Christians).

But, i get that it may stem from many different set of points of view - some problematic and some not.

As for the last part, it's been years since I studied philosophy in depth (I spend most of my time reading boring legal documents chasing toddlers now), so I'm really rusty on this.
First, the easy one.  Our legal code should be loosely based on our moral code, but lawgivers can't legislate morality.  Speeding is illegal but frequently not immoral, and secretly sleeping with your best friend's wife is not illegal but is immoral.  (My views.)  There will always be differences between our criminal code and our moral one.
Second, the hard one.  If morality (not our legal system, but our culture's moral code) is simply culturally constructed, and you recognize that, then why is it logical to follow that culturally constructed moral code when it is not in your self-interest?  The logical thing to do would be for everyone to just act solely in their self-interest at all time (and, in particular, to *pretend* to agree with the culture's moral code to appear sociable while *actually* just ignoring it whenever it appeared like you wouldn't get caught).  Yet humans are CONSTANTLY constructing and deconstructing and reconstructing and following moral codes that have WAAAAY more going on than "act in your perceived self-interest at all times, including pretending to not do so when socially useful."  As someone who believes humans are naturally born with the desire to pursue (objective) good and avoid (objective) evil, while being subject to enormous temptations and weakness, I find these continual efforts (which would be considered a ridiculous waste of time by a real ubermensch) to be evidence of these innate impulses.  Basically, I think humans just can't help acting like God exists, so they may as well realize that and look for some guidance.

The problem I generally find with philosophical consideration of morality (or, anything downstream from spirituality, which is unlikely ever to be in the domain of science as we know it) is that philosophy is generally unable to keep up with science and mathematics. If you agree that "morality" can be boiled down to a form of "cooperation" - then there is a clear biological imperative for it. https://www.quantamagazine.org/on-the-microbial-frontier-cooperation-thrives-20130802.
And further refinement of the thesis (ignore the misleading text in the first paragraph): https://www.quantamagazine.org/game-theory-explains-how-cooperation-evolved-20150212/

A philosopher who operated before Game Theory became a thing and biologists started applying it to explain biological ecosystems would not have known about it. Hobbes clearly had no idea this could be possible when he wrote "There Is Alwayes Warre Of Every One Against Every One". Zooming out a bit, similar general criticism can be made of the "humans" who wrote Bible/Torah/Quraan (or any other scripture).

Coming back to your specific stand, I personally think that morality has both social and biological components. So it is not all relative based on the culture at the moment. I also don't think it is necessary to invoke God in trying to explain morality (even if an individual human would do so, because he/she may just not be aware of the evolutionary imperatives for it), EVEN IF there are parts of it that can't be explained by the present state of human knowledge of Biology and Mathematics.

Like religion, the word "God" also have many meanings. The Abrahamic God that speaks through Bible/Torah/Quraan is a "personal God", one that concerns with law-giving and such. There are Pantheistic and Panentheistic concepts of God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism), and there are religions that are strangely silent of any need for the concept of a God (e.g. Buddhism and Jainism).

I'd generally have zero objections to someone invoking the Einstein's God (https://theweek.com/articles/810619/what-einstein-thought-about-god), or Spinoza's God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza). It is understandable why almost all scriptures and religions would need to shrink the idea down to a personal god, such that the concept of "god" is no more than like a more powerful version of a human king. I doubt most people will relate to Spinoza's God as they would to a bearded white dude in the sky, or his son on the ground who gives out laws for you to obey.

[LWYRUP]

Thanks for responding.  I can give you a better answer to your specific biblical cite.  I know both more "conservative" Christians and secular people give more "liberal" Christians flak for basically waving away parts of the Bible they don't like from time to time.  I do think a lot of the Bible needs to be understood in context, but I think it's fair to tell someone they just can't wave it away and need to explain it. 

You are right that philosophy needs to be refreshed continually based on new scientific research.  I do think they fundamentally answer different questions.  Philosophy deals in trying to derive meaning in a way that science does not.  But you are right that they do need to speak to each other, and that philosophers will always be behind the eight ball.  Even moreso because philosophical ideas get debated and kicked around for centuries, while science marches on. 

I understand cooperation is frequently helpful and that much of the time it is in fact in an individual's self-interest to cooperate, my concern is about trying to figure out why it would be rational behavior when someone has logically and correctly concluded it would NOT be in their self-interest to be cooperative.  They may even have a biological urge to be irrationally cooperative.  If that's the case, if they've determined the urge isn't helpful, isn't that just another outdated evolutionary impulse that a more fully enlightened modern man should now work to overcome in order to more effectively advance his own self interest?

I'll take a look at some of the links you sent when I have more time and report back.

[ctuser1]

Also: read Hobbes.

Thx. will do. For some weird reason I had not before.

Long weekend, homebound, so went over to the Gutenberg project to read Leviathan.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm#link2HCH0013

Hobbes has a really dark view of human nature.

He was contemporaneous with the English Civil War. I wonder how he applied his concept of the absolute sovereign during and after the civil war!!

Needless to say, I am finding his ideas to be pretty unsettling, to the point of being unacceptable in any modern democratic society.

Whose ideas formed the underpinnings for the US constitution? From my reading so far, it can't be Hobbes!

Or, was it all just a set of practical compromise(s) that happened to be so much better than whatever any contemporary philosopher(s) could think of? Or, perhaps I'm just too biased who can't step out of his frame of reference?

Following up on my own question.

I listened through some pretty long youtube videos by Lynn Hunt, of UCLA, on the topic of Human Rights since posting this question.

It seems that the "equality of men" and the concept of "human rights" that are woven through the US declaration of independence and constitution (and also the French revolution happening around the same time) were not thought about by some grand philosopher.

But rather it was art and music and culture and literature that started taking more interest in the common man. The "cultural" milieu (and NOT some grand philosophical doctrine) begat striking impact everywhere - from American Constitution, to the call for "Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity" of the French Revolution and the focus on common man in Adam Smith's Economics.

I have to read up more on other major changes in human society. Are philosophers usually useful for social changes? Or are they just over-glorified encoders of social changes that move ahead of them?

[Paul der Krake]

Also: read Hobbes.

Thx. will do. For some weird reason I had not before.

Long weekend, homebound, so went over to the Gutenberg project to read Leviathan.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm#link2HCH0013

Hobbes has a really dark view of human nature.

He was contemporaneous with the English Civil War. I wonder how he applied his concept of the absolute sovereign during and after the civil war!!

Needless to say, I am finding his ideas to be pretty unsettling, to the point of being unacceptable in any modern democratic society.

Whose ideas formed the underpinnings for the US constitution? From my reading so far, it can't be Hobbes!

Or, was it all just a set of practical compromise(s) that happened to be so much better than whatever any contemporary philosopher(s) could think of? Or, perhaps I'm just too biased who can't step out of his frame of reference?

Following up on my own question.

I listened through some pretty long youtube videos by Lynn Hunt, of UCLA, on the topic of Human Rights since posting this question.

It seems that the "equality of men" and the concept of "human rights" that are woven through the US declaration of independence and constitution (and also the French revolution happening around the same time) were not thought about by some grand philosopher.

But rather it was art and music and culture and literature that started taking more interest in the common man. The "cultural" milieu (and NOT some grand philosophical doctrine) begat striking impact everywhere - from American Constitution, to the call for "Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity" of the French Revolution and the focus on common man in Adam Smith's Economics.

I have to read up more on other major changes in human society. Are philosophers usually useful for social changes? Or are they just over-glorified encoders of social changes that move ahead of them?

For some reason I missed the replies in this thread. Sorry. Reviving 9 months later because I really enjoyed reading (and re-reading) this thread.

Rousseau is the name most people associate the social contract, but it was really Hobbes who first spoke of the abdication of certain rights in an implicit agreement with the state. This is what I was clumsily hinting at when the thread began talking about the monopoly of violence. And yes, he comes off as a rather cynical man, not the kind of person you look up to for an aspirational pep talk.  I'm not quite sure what the philosophical lineage of the US constitution is, but it's definitely not coming from one source only.

But as to your question on whether philosophers are useful actors of social change... I don't know, maybe? Events have a tendency to feed on themselves, but it's useful to have an articulated philosophy of a broader "mood change". People love to brandish books! This reminds me of the great men of history debate.