England is a representative democracy (the monarchy is window dressing) with no written constitution. They get what they want, however unpalatable it may seem to us in the USA.
To do this they definately had to take the guns first. If any government tries to do this to me I won't survive the encounter but then neither will several government employees and as many of their bosses as I can get to.
"In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal." - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
"Well! And HERE'S a lovely flat...bloody bad luck that the owner died."
"I beg your pardon, who are you people and what are you doing in my house?"
"Ahh, I'm an estate agent, this is the Higginbothams, who wish to buy a home here, and you, madame, are deceased...so it's NOT your house anymore."
"Are you daft? I'm not dead! Kindly get out of my flat!"
"I say, Perkins, she doesn't appear to be dead, perhaps we should look at some other properties?"
"Not to worry, she's quite dead, I assure you...look, I have the proper forms from the Ministry right here."
"Oh yes, I see, it all seems to be in order, well, let's proceed then."
"Can I see those papers?"
"Why would you need to see any paperwork? You're dead. I would think that you might want to at least cooperate by lying down and keeping quiet while the Higginbothams inspect this house."
"But I'm NOT dead, you mad fool!"
"There's no call to get unpleasant, I would hate to have to call the police. I think starting out your afterlife with an arrest record might not look too well for you."
"Well...I suppose not...I don't mean to be a bother."
"I say, this is something of a bore...perhaps we could thump her in the head with something...the deceased REALLY should learn their place."
"Not to worry, she'll come around, if there's one thing I've learned in British real estate, it's that you won't make a sale if you stand around arguing with dead people all day long."
Socialism is just the political wing of humanism. I realize there are different flavors of humanism, but the predominant version is what you see in Canada, Europe, and in a more extreme form, the old USSR and China.
You paint with too broad a brush, Sarah. Libertarianism is a branch of humanism. (Small "L".) So is Free Market Anarchism. Just because socialism is predominant doesn't make it "the political wing."
We beat the USSR, and China isn't what it used to be. Reality will eventually drag Europe kicking and screaming into reality, if it doesn't turn into Eurabia first - and that holds for Canada as well.
Yes, Kevin, but where in the world do libertarianism, Objectivism, Free Market Anarchism, etc. even remotely have a foothold? In terms of the great conflicts occurring in the world, these movements are just aberrations, and irrelevant to any discussion. The version of humanism that overwhelmingly prevails in the world holds equality of outcome as the highest value. Socialism is the logical political expression of that.
We beat the USSR, and China isn't what it used to be. Reality will eventually drag Europe kicking and screaming into reality, if it doesn't turn into Eurabia first - and that holds for Canada as well.
Here is the problem with China and Russia. They have absolutely no morality there. Without any principles to guide them, Russia has become a thugocracy, and China is a de facto fascist state. They are never going to arrive at the notion of individual rights without some kind of moral foundation. As for Europe and Canada, they are experiencing slow suicide (as per your latest post on England). Unless they turn things around, Islam will simply move in to inhabit what's left after the old culture is dead.
It's going to be difficult to turn things around in Europe. The is because humanism is a religion, and you first have to convert Europeans and Canadians to a belief system that is compatible with individual rights. I haven't read Ann Coulter's latest book, but I suspect she gets it right. Humanism, i.e. liberalism, has all the hallmarks of a religion, and enough of its followers are true-believers. Look at the response to the bust of the 17 terror suspects in Canada. Canadians are spinning the facts as hard as they can to convince themselves that these men were not motivated by religious/cultural reasons, in obeyance with the tenet that all cultures are equally good. It's faith.
Going back to the main point of your post, there is another unfortunate aspect of humanism/socialism, which is that it produces an apathetic populace with a violent, predatory fringe. (Sound familiar?) This is exactly what's going on in England right now, and is explained by a law of human behavior known as the relativity of value reactions. This law simply says that you can never achieve a desired outcome by going after it directly, i.e. when you try to enforce sharing and caring through government mandate, you get the opposite. And the harder they try to mandate, the worse it's going to get.
One definition of humanism that I found in a dictionary is "concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans". Well, if that is accurate, then I qualify as a humanist. I am also about as far from being a socialist, communist, or fascist as it's possible to be. And, as you well know, I am also about as areligious as it's possible to be.
I don't much care for a response to an observation along the lines of, "I see you have this characteristic, which is characteristic of ___, therefore you are a ___, and so you have the other characteristics that are commonly scribed to ___. Kevin described this in much fewer words as "you paint with too broad a brush".
Perhaps he's right. I hope that's not what you're doing.
You persist in the notion that moral behavior comes only from a religious foundation. I don't think I'll ever understand why.
This phenomenon has been with us for a long time and my family was one of its victims.
In 1962, my father died. Among other things, he was a dairy farmer. To inherit his land, my mother had to sell it to be able to pay the inheritance taxes levied on it. If she had not done so, the gubmint would have simply confiscated it in lieu of taxes.
There's another form it might take. The Dimocrats have talked about levying a new tax. If you own your home, you could rent it out instead, and so you should pay taxes on the income you would receive if you did. Cute, huh?
That definition of humanism is useless, because it applies to everyone. Is there any belief system out there that is not concerned with those things in some form?
For humanism to be a thing it has to have a more exact definition. The best definition of a humanist is a person who puts humans first and uses man as the measure of all things. It is a system of belief that meets all the criteria of a religion, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it is a godless religion. That's why there is so much unreasonableness over things like gay marriage and abortion. It's a matter of faith on both sides.
You persist in the notion that moral behavior comes only from a religious foundation. I don't think I'll ever understand why.
Do you wonder why the kind of morality that you and I subscribe to only exists in places with a Judeo-Christian heritage? Do you think it's just a coincidence? If so, then you have to explain why a critical mass of moral individualists like you and me has only developed in certain places and at certain times. The more you look at the evidence, the more untenable it becomes that morality is independent of religion.
Ultimately it comes down to your perspective. If you believe that this life is all you have and that enjoying yourself is all there is, your values are going to be radically different than if you believe that this life is just a small part of a greater scheme of things, but with a purpose given by a loving God. People can't act the same in those two different situations. It goes back to the Epicureans. The way a philosopher sees his philosophy is never the way the masses live it out. For people to have moral behavior, it has to be in the context of eternity and universal right and wrong.
Oh jeez, no, not another theists vs. atheists discussion.
It's getting tiresome, and it's even scarcely relevant to the topic at hand.
I imagine what I could do in such a case. I could attack by surprise and kick the teeth out of at least one of the muggers. And if I had someone reliable to cover my back, I'd have no fear. But then, I'd probably be treated as a criminal myself, in this sorry state of things.
But there is no doubt I'd help someone staggering covered in blood along the road.
One night in Oxford Street I saw two guys trying to pry open telephones, and yelled them to stop. A "community support police" - aka "copper lite" - car passed by, and I told them, they just nodded and left me to deal with a possibly upset yob. Charming, ain't it? However, I basically told the phone-cracker to sod off while showing no fear, and that was enough to make him desist.
The best definition of a humanist is a person who puts humans first and uses man as the measure of all things.
I think the mind of man is the measure of all things that man measures, as all "yardsticks" come from the mind of man. I'm not being facetious, either. All notions of good and evil come from the mind of man, no matter what labels or attributes he gives them.
... and the Supreme Court has ruled that it is a godless religion.
"Godless religion" is an oxymoron. The notion that religion does not necessarily require gods is useless, because it applies to all belief systems.
For people to have moral behavior, it has to be in the context of eternity and universal right and wrong.
Why?
Kevin:
It does not logically follow that morality must be dependent on religion.
You beat me to it, and you're right.
Consider a simple thought experiment. Two people each prescribe precisely the same behavior and state that behaving thusly would be "moral". One asserts that such rules are in accordance with "God's Will", while the the other asserts that "There Is No God". The stated behavior is the same either way, and neither assertion can be proved.
Is the behavior moral or isn't it? To answer that question is to make a moral judgment with your own mind, isn't it? Either person can make that judgment, can't he?
So the average Brit isn't even a real 'subject of the Crown' anymore; they're just a bunch of peasants who'd better do what they're told. And their property only 'belongs' to them as long as some government weenie approves.
The one thing that defines the human condition is relativity. This means that all human-derived notions of morality, all ideas about what is right and wrong, good and bad, are necessarily relative. If you want to believe that some things are absolute, that they are always right and wrong or good and bad, then this necessarily has to be based on something outside of the human experience.
"Godless religion" is an oxymoron. The notion that religion does not necessarily require gods is useless, because it applies to all belief systems.
No, you're wrong there. A deity isn't required. Humanism has all of the attributes of religion: dogma, mythology, holy cities, inquisition, seminaries, and especially a deep hatred of other religions. Humanists themselves actively seeked constitutional protection when they petitioned the Supreme Court to be declared a godless religion. This has been conveniently forgotten, and has allowed humanism to creep under the radar of church and state.
You and Kevin claim that it doesn't necessarily follow that morality must be dependent on religion, but that is the proof of history. There has never been a moral society that has been founded on anything but a belief in the eternal. We've had thousands of years for civilization to think of ways to organize human affairs, and I'm not sure how many more unique ways there are. As for a more general proof, I leave it to you to explain how you can instill in people the idea of absolute right and wrong in the absence of anything else eternal.
Kevin, you say we've only been at this civilization thing for a short time, but short compared to what? The geological history of the earth? Well, people have only tried communism for 80 years, which is a really short time compared to anything in human history, but does that leave any doubt in your mind that it is a thoroughly failed ideology?
"Humanism has all of the attributes of religion: dogma, mythology, holy cities, inquisition, seminaries, and especially a deep hatred of other religions."
Thanks for admitting that.
As far as the timeline goes, I'll quote Bill Whittle, who is far more eloquent than I'll ever be:
"In the long marathon of our history, our civilizations are only the last two or three halting steps. It took millions of years to design and build the human animal. It will likely take that long again to design out all of the passions and furies that brought us here."
Thousands of years of civilization versus millions of years of existence. Passions and furies like religions that elicit deep hatred of others.
I'd be a fool not to. Completely divergent views on life are not compatible with one another -- it's why multi-culturalism doesn't work. But of all the world's major ideologies, you know which one is the most tolerant.
"In the long marathon of our history, our civilizations are only the last two or three halting steps. It took millions of years to design and build the human animal. It will likely take that long again to design out all of the passions and furies that brought us here."
Great! Now we only have to wait a few more million years for man to be perfected. What do we do in the meantime?
I've only read part of Whittle's essay, and so without knowing the full context or what his religious views are, here are my problems with that comment -- or at least with the way it's being used. First, it assumes that our passions and furies are not a deliberate part of our design or an asset. As an atheist, you don't believe in purposeful design, but would you want a man without passions and furies? He'd be an ant.
The other problem is that human consciousness -- the thing that truly distinguishes us as human beings -- emerged very suddenly. It isn't millions of years of existence, it's thousands.
"The other problem is that human consciousness -- the thing that truly distinguishes us as human beings -- emerged very suddenly. It isn't millions of years of existence, it's thousands."
And you base this assertion on...?
And if it's thousands, is it 10-20, 70-80, 300-400?
If you want to believe that some things are absolute, that they are always right and wrong or good and bad, then this necessarily has to be based on something outside of the human experience.
Again, why?
ALL notions of deities are inventions of the mind of man, as are the rules for behavior that are ascribed to them. Indeed, Man invented God in his image and likeness. You would have me believe that this is "something outside the human experience"? No, it is most of the human experience of the last two millenia. Such notions are made-up, superstitious nonsense.
The notion of gods has evolved thoughout human history and continues to do so to this day. Why do you think rules with such labels attached are "eternal"?
Humanism has all of the attributes of religion: dogma, mythology, holy cities, inquisition, seminaries, and especially a deep hatred of other religions. Humanists themselves actively seeked constitutional protection when they petitioned the Supreme Court to be declared a godless religion.
Humanism doesn't have the deities that religions have, "holy cities" or no "holy cities". Some humanists sought a political benefit by attaching a label to themselves that didn't apply to them. I lump it in with attempts by creationists to redefine "science" for political reasons, namely to keep a toehold in the classroom.
If such an act redefined "religion", then the term lost its meaning. I don't buy it.
You and Kevin claim that it doesn't necessarily follow that morality must be dependent on religion, but that is the proof of history. There has never been a moral society that has been founded on anything but a belief in the eternal.
Which you assert simply by defining "morality" as such. I don't buy that, either.
The notion that "we've always done it this way, so it's the only way it can be done" is quite irrational. The notion that morality must be based on religion because it mostly has been for much of recorded history is simply not a logical conclusion. Such is Kevin's assertion and I agree with him.
For nearly all of recorded human history, particularly the last two millenia, power has been wielded by two kinds of people, either separately or together: 1) the shamans du jour, who claim to know what the gods want and who coerce behavior by the carrot ("You're gonna like being dead in heaven!") and/or the stick ("You're gonna hate being dead in hell!"); and, 2) the dictators du jour, who coerce behavior by the carrot ("Do what I tell you and you can be sadistic, too!") and/or the stick ("See my sword?"). The peasantry has been made up of two kinds of people: 1) those who resist and die; and, 2) those who follow and live. Given man's propensity for superstition, there are much more of the latter than the former.
And so, there has been very little attempt to try a society that is not based on religion because it generates a power vacuum that anyone who is mean enough and charismatic enough can step into. It's not a pretty history. It does not logically follow that the rules for behavior such societies generate are the only rules for behavior that can be "moral".
OF course noone help the retiree; a person can't use violence in defence of self or others against attack in England anymore! You've pointed out, if one uses force in defence, you're the bad guy who's a threat to society, the thugs who started it are "misunderstood products of society."
And the thing with the gubmint seizing homes of the deceased after six months; good thing that's not over here (yet!) My wife's grandparents died over a year and half ago, we've been slowly repairing it to move in (hopefully soon.) With Hurricane Rita running over us, we had to put that project on hold for six months, not to mention it was a 50 year old house needing extensive work. We'd have been totally screwed if that law applied here!
Matt in Texas
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2006/06/and-we-thought-kelo-decision-was-bad.html (26 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
England is a representative democracy (the monarchy is window dressing) with no written constitution. They get what they want, however unpalatable it may seem to us in the USA.
And we're following right along behind, it sometimes seems.
To do this they definately had to take the guns first. If any government tries to do this to me I won't survive the encounter but then neither will several government employees and as many of their bosses as I can get to.
From poster Stratiotes at AR15.com:
Law is force.
The second amend has no force of law anymore, and therefore is no law at all.
The only exception is when people have nothing left to lose and decide to die fighting.
Kinda reminds me of something I wrote. But he was briefer.
Edited to add this quote I like better:
"In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal." - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Oh England! Isn't it the 4th most violent country in the world?
Tim Lambert should be along shortly to claim that crime is declining in Britain.
"Well! And HERE'S a lovely flat...bloody bad luck that the owner died."
"I beg your pardon, who are you people and what are you doing in my house?"
"Ahh, I'm an estate agent, this is the Higginbothams, who wish to buy a home here, and you, madame, are deceased...so it's NOT your house anymore."
"Are you daft? I'm not dead! Kindly get out of my flat!"
"I say, Perkins, she doesn't appear to be dead, perhaps we should look at some other properties?"
"Not to worry, she's quite dead, I assure you...look, I have the proper forms from the Ministry right here."
"Oh yes, I see, it all seems to be in order, well, let's proceed then."
"Can I see those papers?"
"Why would you need to see any paperwork? You're dead. I would think that you might want to at least cooperate by lying down and keeping quiet while the Higginbothams inspect this house."
"But I'm NOT dead, you mad fool!"
"There's no call to get unpleasant, I would hate to have to call the police. I think starting out your afterlife with an arrest record might not look too well for you."
"Well...I suppose not...I don't mean to be a bother."
"I say, this is something of a bore...perhaps we could thump her in the head with something...the deceased REALLY should learn their place."
"Not to worry, she'll come around, if there's one thing I've learned in British real estate, it's that you won't make a sale if you stand around arguing with dead people all day long."
Regards;
Canada is much the same. Those are humanist societies for you.
"Those are socialist societies for you."
Fixed it for you.
Socialism is just the political wing of humanism. I realize there are different flavors of humanism, but the predominant version is what you see in Canada, Europe, and in a more extreme form, the old USSR and China.
You paint with too broad a brush, Sarah. Libertarianism is a branch of humanism. (Small "L".) So is Free Market Anarchism. Just because socialism is predominant doesn't make it "the political wing."
We beat the USSR, and China isn't what it used to be. Reality will eventually drag Europe kicking and screaming into reality, if it doesn't turn into Eurabia first - and that holds for Canada as well.
Yes, Kevin, but where in the world do libertarianism, Objectivism, Free Market Anarchism, etc. even remotely have a foothold? In terms of the great conflicts occurring in the world, these movements are just aberrations, and irrelevant to any discussion. The version of humanism that overwhelmingly prevails in the world holds equality of outcome as the highest value. Socialism is the logical political expression of that.
We beat the USSR, and China isn't what it used to be. Reality will eventually drag Europe kicking and screaming into reality, if it doesn't turn into Eurabia first - and that holds for Canada as well.
Here is the problem with China and Russia. They have absolutely no morality there. Without any principles to guide them, Russia has become a thugocracy, and China is a de facto fascist state. They are never going to arrive at the notion of individual rights without some kind of moral foundation. As for Europe and Canada, they are experiencing slow suicide (as per your latest post on England). Unless they turn things around, Islam will simply move in to inhabit what's left after the old culture is dead.
It's going to be difficult to turn things around in Europe. The is because humanism is a religion, and you first have to convert Europeans and Canadians to a belief system that is compatible with individual rights. I haven't read Ann Coulter's latest book, but I suspect she gets it right. Humanism, i.e. liberalism, has all the hallmarks of a religion, and enough of its followers are true-believers. Look at the response to the bust of the 17 terror suspects in Canada. Canadians are spinning the facts as hard as they can to convince themselves that these men were not motivated by religious/cultural reasons, in obeyance with the tenet that all cultures are equally good. It's faith.
Going back to the main point of your post, there is another unfortunate aspect of humanism/socialism, which is that it produces an apathetic populace with a violent, predatory fringe. (Sound familiar?) This is exactly what's going on in England right now, and is explained by a law of human behavior known as the relativity of value reactions. This law simply says that you can never achieve a desired outcome by going after it directly, i.e. when you try to enforce sharing and caring through government mandate, you get the opposite. And the harder they try to mandate, the worse it's going to get.
Sarah:
One definition of humanism that I found in a dictionary is "concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans". Well, if that is accurate, then I qualify as a humanist. I am also about as far from being a socialist, communist, or fascist as it's possible to be. And, as you well know, I am also about as areligious as it's possible to be.
I don't much care for a response to an observation along the lines of, "I see you have this characteristic, which is characteristic of ___, therefore you are a ___, and so you have the other characteristics that are commonly scribed to ___. Kevin described this in much fewer words as "you paint with too broad a brush".
Perhaps he's right. I hope that's not what you're doing.
You persist in the notion that moral behavior comes only from a religious foundation. I don't think I'll ever understand why.
Kevin:
This phenomenon has been with us for a long time and my family was one of its victims.
In 1962, my father died. Among other things, he was a dairy farmer. To inherit his land, my mother had to sell it to be able to pay the inheritance taxes levied on it. If she had not done so, the gubmint would have simply confiscated it in lieu of taxes.
There's another form it might take. The Dimocrats have talked about levying a new tax. If you own your home, you could rent it out instead, and so you should pay taxes on the income you would receive if you did. Cute, huh?
DJ,
That definition of humanism is useless, because it applies to everyone. Is there any belief system out there that is not concerned with those things in some form?
For humanism to be a thing it has to have a more exact definition. The best definition of a humanist is a person who puts humans first and uses man as the measure of all things. It is a system of belief that meets all the criteria of a religion, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it is a godless religion. That's why there is so much unreasonableness over things like gay marriage and abortion. It's a matter of faith on both sides.
You persist in the notion that moral behavior comes only from a religious foundation. I don't think I'll ever understand why.
Do you wonder why the kind of morality that you and I subscribe to only exists in places with a Judeo-Christian heritage? Do you think it's just a coincidence? If so, then you have to explain why a critical mass of moral individualists like you and me has only developed in certain places and at certain times. The more you look at the evidence, the more untenable it becomes that morality is independent of religion.
Ultimately it comes down to your perspective. If you believe that this life is all you have and that enjoying yourself is all there is, your values are going to be radically different than if you believe that this life is just a small part of a greater scheme of things, but with a purpose given by a loving God. People can't act the same in those two different situations. It goes back to the Epicureans. The way a philosopher sees his philosophy is never the way the masses live it out. For people to have moral behavior, it has to be in the context of eternity and universal right and wrong.
"The more you look at the evidence, the more untenable it becomes that morality has been independent of religion."
It does not logically follow that morality must be dependent on religion.
We just haven't been at this long enough.
Oh jeez, no, not another theists vs. atheists discussion.
It's getting tiresome, and it's even scarcely relevant to the topic at hand.
I imagine what I could do in such a case. I could attack by surprise and kick the teeth out of at least one of the muggers. And if I had someone reliable to cover my back, I'd have no fear. But then, I'd probably be treated as a criminal myself, in this sorry state of things.
But there is no doubt I'd help someone staggering covered in blood along the road.
One night in Oxford Street I saw two guys trying to pry open telephones, and yelled them to stop. A "community support police" - aka "copper lite" - car passed by, and I told them, they just nodded and left me to deal with a possibly upset yob. Charming, ain't it? However, I basically told the phone-cracker to sod off while showing no fear, and that was enough to make him desist.
Sarah:
The best definition of a humanist is a person who puts humans first and uses man as the measure of all things.
I think the mind of man is the measure of all things that man measures, as all "yardsticks" come from the mind of man. I'm not being facetious, either. All notions of good and evil come from the mind of man, no matter what labels or attributes he gives them.
... and the Supreme Court has ruled that it is a godless religion.
"Godless religion" is an oxymoron. The notion that religion does not necessarily require gods is useless, because it applies to all belief systems.
For people to have moral behavior, it has to be in the context of eternity and universal right and wrong.
Why?
Kevin:
It does not logically follow that morality must be dependent on religion.
You beat me to it, and you're right.
Consider a simple thought experiment. Two people each prescribe precisely the same behavior and state that behaving thusly would be "moral". One asserts that such rules are in accordance with "God's Will", while the the other asserts that "There Is No God". The stated behavior is the same either way, and neither assertion can be proved.
Is the behavior moral or isn't it? To answer that question is to make a moral judgment with your own mind, isn't it? Either person can make that judgment, can't he?
So the average Brit isn't even a real 'subject of the Crown' anymore; they're just a bunch of peasants who'd better do what they're told. And their property only 'belongs' to them as long as some government weenie approves.
Yeah, Kelo was bad, but...
DJ,notion
The one thing that defines the human condition is relativity. This means that all human-derived notions of morality, all ideas about what is right and wrong, good and bad, are necessarily relative. If you want to believe that some things are absolute, that they are always right and wrong or good and bad, then this necessarily has to be based on something outside of the human experience.
"Godless religion" is an oxymoron. The notion that religion does not necessarily require gods is useless, because it applies to all belief systems.
No, you're wrong there. A deity isn't required. Humanism has all of the attributes of religion: dogma, mythology, holy cities, inquisition, seminaries, and especially a deep hatred of other religions. Humanists themselves actively seeked constitutional protection when they petitioned the Supreme Court to be declared a godless religion. This has been conveniently forgotten, and has allowed humanism to creep under the radar of church and state.
You and Kevin claim that it doesn't necessarily follow that morality must be dependent on religion, but that is the proof of history. There has never been a moral society that has been founded on anything but a belief in the eternal. We've had thousands of years for civilization to think of ways to organize human affairs, and I'm not sure how many more unique ways there are. As for a more general proof, I leave it to you to explain how you can instill in people the idea of absolute right and wrong in the absence of anything else eternal.
Kevin, you say we've only been at this civilization thing for a short time, but short compared to what? The geological history of the earth? Well, people have only tried communism for 80 years, which is a really short time compared to anything in human history, but does that leave any doubt in your mind that it is a thoroughly failed ideology?
Oh, argh. Ignore that first "notion." Notepad went wonky on me.
"Humanism has all of the attributes of religion: dogma, mythology, holy cities, inquisition, seminaries, and especially a deep hatred of other religions."
Thanks for admitting that.
As far as the timeline goes, I'll quote Bill Whittle, who is far more eloquent than I'll ever be:
"In the long marathon of our history, our civilizations are only the last two or three halting steps. It took millions of years to design and build the human animal. It will likely take that long again to design out all of the passions and furies that brought us here."
Thousands of years of civilization versus millions of years of existence. Passions and furies like religions that elicit deep hatred of others.
Thanks for admitting that.
I'd be a fool not to. Completely divergent views on life are not compatible with one another -- it's why multi-culturalism doesn't work. But of all the world's major ideologies, you know which one is the most tolerant.
"In the long marathon of our history, our civilizations are only the last two or three halting steps. It took millions of years to design and build the human animal. It will likely take that long again to design out all of the passions and furies that brought us here."
Great! Now we only have to wait a few more million years for man to be perfected. What do we do in the meantime?
I've only read part of Whittle's essay, and so without knowing the full context or what his religious views are, here are my problems with that comment -- or at least with the way it's being used. First, it assumes that our passions and furies are not a deliberate part of our design or an asset. As an atheist, you don't believe in purposeful design, but would you want a man without passions and furies? He'd be an ant.
The other problem is that human consciousness -- the thing that truly distinguishes us as human beings -- emerged very suddenly. It isn't millions of years of existence, it's thousands.
"The other problem is that human consciousness -- the thing that truly distinguishes us as human beings -- emerged very suddenly. It isn't millions of years of existence, it's thousands."
And you base this assertion on...?
And if it's thousands, is it 10-20, 70-80, 300-400?
Sarah:
If you want to believe that some things are absolute, that they are always right and wrong or good and bad, then this necessarily has to be based on something outside of the human experience.
Again, why?
ALL notions of deities are inventions of the mind of man, as are the rules for behavior that are ascribed to them. Indeed, Man invented God in his image and likeness. You would have me believe that this is "something outside the human experience"? No, it is most of the human experience of the last two millenia. Such notions are made-up, superstitious nonsense.
The notion of gods has evolved thoughout human history and continues to do so to this day. Why do you think rules with such labels attached are "eternal"?
Humanism has all of the attributes of religion: dogma, mythology, holy cities, inquisition, seminaries, and especially a deep hatred of other religions. Humanists themselves actively seeked constitutional protection when they petitioned the Supreme Court to be declared a godless religion.
Humanism doesn't have the deities that religions have, "holy cities" or no "holy cities". Some humanists sought a political benefit by attaching a label to themselves that didn't apply to them. I lump it in with attempts by creationists to redefine "science" for political reasons, namely to keep a toehold in the classroom.
If such an act redefined "religion", then the term lost its meaning. I don't buy it.
You and Kevin claim that it doesn't necessarily follow that morality must be dependent on religion, but that is the proof of history. There has never been a moral society that has been founded on anything but a belief in the eternal.
Which you assert simply by defining "morality" as such. I don't buy that, either.
The notion that "we've always done it this way, so it's the only way it can be done" is quite irrational. The notion that morality must be based on religion because it mostly has been for much of recorded history is simply not a logical conclusion. Such is Kevin's assertion and I agree with him.
For nearly all of recorded human history, particularly the last two millenia, power has been wielded by two kinds of people, either separately or together: 1) the shamans du jour, who claim to know what the gods want and who coerce behavior by the carrot ("You're gonna like being dead in heaven!") and/or the stick ("You're gonna hate being dead in hell!"); and, 2) the dictators du jour, who coerce behavior by the carrot ("Do what I tell you and you can be sadistic, too!") and/or the stick ("See my sword?"). The peasantry has been made up of two kinds of people: 1) those who resist and die; and, 2) those who follow and live. Given man's propensity for superstition, there are much more of the latter than the former.
And so, there has been very little attempt to try a society that is not based on religion because it generates a power vacuum that anyone who is mean enough and charismatic enough can step into. It's not a pretty history. It does not logically follow that the rules for behavior such societies generate are the only rules for behavior that can be "moral".
OF course noone help the retiree; a person can't use violence in defence of self or others against attack in England anymore! You've pointed out, if one uses force in defence, you're the bad guy who's a threat to society, the thugs who started it are "misunderstood products of society."
And the thing with the gubmint seizing homes of the deceased after six months; good thing that's not over here (yet!) My wife's grandparents died over a year and half ago, we've been slowly repairing it to move in (hopefully soon.) With Hurricane Rita running over us, we had to put that project on hold for six months, not to mention it was a 50 year old house needing extensive work. We'd have been totally screwed if that law applied here!
Matt in Texas
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>