I think we're generally in agreement on these issues. The need someone like Dawkins apparently feels to tell everyone there is no God strikes me as no more appealing than the need others feel to tell everyone there is a God.

As far as alternatives to what seems to be our common upbringing in the Catholic faith, for me, the immanent deity of the Stoics has an appeal, or some form of pantheism or pandeism.

The peculiarities of Christianity, and in particular those of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, are fascinating in themselves, and it's easy enough to lose oneself in them. But I think they can be relevant to the topic of the thread.

I think factual correctness isn't and shouldn't be the goal of religion, because its subject matter is largely ineffable (as is that of art). But I think that a religion should be at least reasonable to a degree, i.e. that it shouldn't require those who believe in it approve of and accept assertions, concepts or ideas that are clearly absurd. It's a personal opinion only, I suppose, but I think one of the goals of a religion should be to avoid being ridiculous.

For me, acceptance of sky-god religions, the Abrahamic religions, in their original form, requires acceptance of certain essential beliefs which clearly make no sense and are inexplicable. That seems to have worked quite well for a very long time, but any belief system which is incredible will provide no insight, no comfort, no joy, no contentment to a person inclined to accept what we encounter in life and the world. So we see apologists for that kind of religion becoming more and more inclined over the years to ignore if not reject those essential beliefs and claims of exclusiveness, or refer to them as metaphors, or as not to be taken literally.

"YouTube philosopher" forsooth.

"Joy is but the shadow pain casts."
Captain, Swedish curling team, The Simpsons.

The very concept of a solitary, omnipresent, omnipotent and onmiscient God developed first among the Israelites of old. Christianity, largely thanks to the fact of the first Christians being Jewish Christians, as well as the influence among the Greeks of Saul of Tarsus, took that conception of God directly from the Jews. — Michael Zwingli

Whether Christianity can properly be called monotheistic presents an interesting question. The concept of the Trinity--three Divine Persons in a single Godhood--has always been something of a problem in Christianity. How could it not be? The good old Credo (derived from the Council of Nicea) spells out the difficulty, and the unsatisfying resolution of the difficulty, quite well. To use the English translation of the Latin: "I believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth....And in one Lord Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, born of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father..."

For Jesus to be God, he must of course be consubstantial with the Father, and with the other Person, the Holy Spirit, but the "Three Persons" seems oddly dissimilar to "One God." Then there is, or was, the cult of the saints (who are sometimes strangely similar to pagan gods), and of course the status of Mary. All this has been explained, rather clumsily I believe, by apologists for centuries. But Christianity for me seems more like a hodgepodge of Judaism of the first century B.C.E., Greco-Roman religions current at the time, with a bit of pagan philosophy thrown in for good measure, than anything else. That may account for its astonishing success.

Then why did you say:

There was no problem of tolerance until Christianity began its relentless destruction of antiquity.
— Ciceronianus — Hanover

Because the intolerance of the Jews was limited, and primarily local (to Israel). Rome for the most part tolerated the Jewish religion because their weird, peculiar, god usually was just that--their (the Jews) weird, peculiar god. The Jews weren't inclined to compel everyone to become Jews (unlike Christians, who wanted all to be Christian). When the Jews and their god refused to accept Roman rule, then the legions were called in and annihilated them in 70 B.C.E. and 135 B.C.E., but that was a matter of the retention of Rome's imperium. Jews objected to pagan statutes, temples and practices in Israel, but unlike Christians they didn't seek to deface and destroy them wherever they were found.

Christian intolerance was imposed throughout the Empire after the imperial government had been assimilated by Christians. Constantine was relatively tolerant when it came to pagan religions, but under Constantius II laws and edits were issued prescribing the death penalty for those who performed or attended pagan sacrifices or worshipped pagan idols, pagan temples shut down and the Altar of Victory removed from its place of honor in the Roman Senate (around 353 B.C.E.) Subsequent Emperors like Theodosius I and II, Honorius and others continued to close pagan temples and prohibit pagan worship. It's believed that the Olympic games were closed by decree of one of the Christian Emperors. Pagan priesthoods were disbanded, the Vestal Virgins dissolved and Vesta's eternal flame extinguished. Pagans were prohibited from holding high office in government.

Of course, Christian prelates and ordinary Christians were essential to the destruction of paganism as well. St. Augustine exhorted his congregation to smash all pagan statutes and symbols "for that all superstition of pagans and heathens should be annihilated is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims!"

Not a cheery, easy-going, friendly folk, those early Christians. And not so early ones, as well.

This is a tough historical thesis to maintain, as it would require not just a comparison to the ancient Greek religions, but to all prior religions. — Hanover

My "thesis" is simply that the Abrahamic religions are inherently intolerant. That doesn't mean that no other religions are, or have been, intolerant. As to the ancient Greek and Roman religions, we have good evidence that the pagans worshipped several gods, and that worshipping one of them didn't require that no other gods be worshipped.

If Abrahamic religions are inherently intolerant, it wouldn't make sense that the intolerance would lie dormant for over a thousand years until the advent of Christianity, considering the Abrahamic religion of Judaism pre-dated it by that many years. — Hanover

Judaism was quite intolerant and exclusive long before Christianity began. One need only read the Old Testament to understand that the Jews were violent towards non-believers--they seemed to have been particularly enchanted by the thought of the infants of non-believers being wacked against stone walls--this fond wish is expressed more than once in the Old Testament. The Jews always prohibited pagan religion and practices and wouldn't allow them in Jerusalem or elsewhere in Israel. Jews, of course, weren't allowed to worship any God but their own, jealous God. Riots between Jews and Greeks were frequent in Alexandria in the first century B.C.E. The rejection of attempts to introduce Hellenism and paganism into Israel resulted in the Jewish conflicts with Antiochus IV and later played its part in the two wars with the Romans in the first and second centuries B.C.E. The Jews differed from the early Christians in that they didn't try to impose their religion on others, and in any case lacked the power to do so.

Of course I accept it! Why else should I have brought it up? I only said that "this [discussing it] is not in my plan." Besides that, my whole description was about showing that the body is something separate from YOU. Even the statement of this topic itself indicates that.
(I didn't want to involve the term "mind" in all this, for not complicating things. Of course, the mind is non-physical and thus separate from the body.) — Alkis Piskas

And of course I knew you accepted it--and necessarily so. I don't think you can escape the dualism by merely asserting that you're not "discussing" it. You're bound to it, I'm afraid.

How does Christianity survive without supernaturalism or the fact of Jesus (either as historical person or son of god)? How does it survive without a claim to exclusive access to heaven? Those are great questions for Christians and they seem to be working on them. If/when they move on and the Christian community follows them, will they in that instant stop being Christians? I doubt it. — Ennui Elucidator

People who claim to be Christians have been trying to reconcile the preposterous with the rational for a long time-from the early efforts to incorporate Platonism, through the time of Thomas Aquinas, who tried to attach Aristotle to Christianity, to the more recent efforts of folk like Karl Barth. It's an impossible task, I think. The effort to make Christianity "reasonable" requires the rejection of its claim to exclusivity and of the claim that Jesus is God. If neither claim is true, Christianity becomes something other than Christianity.

Now, one can examine the subject using theories belonging to the philosophy of mind, and more specifically "dualism": "the theory that the mental and the physical – or mind and body or mind and brain – are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). But this is not in my plan. — Alkis Piskas

So you don't accept that dualism? Are you neither your body or your mind, but something which is neither?

I agree with your sentiment about some historical religions being more or less tolerant than others, but I disagree that there is anything inherent about Abrahamic religions. — Ennui Elucidator

Well, it rather comes with the territory, doesn't it? If, e.g., Jesus is the only true God, and Christianity the only path to God, it's a bit taxing to be "friendly" towards other, pretend Gods and their ignorant worshippers.

The ancient pagan religions of the Greeks and Romans were certainly friendly, even the so-called mystery religions. It wasn't unusual for someone to be an initiate of the Mithras cult and an initiate of Isis or Magna Mater. One could worship Jupiter, Asclepius as well as other gods. There was no problem of tolerance until Christianity began its relentless destruction of antiquity. The Abrahamic religions are inherently intolerant.

I began this thread to criticize the Supremes for their chicken-hearted though politically expedient decision to refuse to stay the effectiveness of an outrageously drafted and seriously deficient law, and to express fear that political considerations will induce the Justices to avoid taking up important issues in the future.

For those of you who would prefer to practice sanctimony, I'm an easy-going fellow, so have at it if you must but you might consider doing more than merely making declarations.

If a person attacks a pregnant woman and a fetus dies, they can be charged with murder.
If a doctor removes a fetus and it dies (abortion) there are no consequences. — Rxspence

It's interesting that you mention the woman in your first example, but not in the second. Do you care to explain why that's the case?

While I certainly agree with him about the realpolitik of the Texas decision, I am not so sure that Roe, Casey, and many other cases don’t follow a similar path. To simply hold up prior SC decisions as if they are some great accomplishment of human reason which engages in line drawing in some unquestionable fashion is naive at best. — Ennui Elucidator

That isn't required, however, in order for one to take the position Roe must be respected as precedent and treated as such. The majority's approach is to merely ignore it, thereby allowing a law which it admits is constitutionally questionable to remain in effect (encouraging the adoption of other, similar laws) until it is compelled to address it. I frankly wonder whether the majority decided the law is so bizarre they would be compelled to strike it down, and declined to review it in order to avoid doing so. But I'm a cynic in the common sense, though an aspiring Stoic in the philosophical sense.

Surely Congress has the needed authority under the commerce clause. <ducking> — Srap Tasmaner

Don't call me "Shirley" (sorry, I can't resist an Airplane reference).

I think the pro-life folks have reached such a level of zeal that as far as they're concerned, there can be no reasonable law permitting abortions.

Since Marbury v. Madison, issued in 1803, it's been accepted that the federal courts may review legislation and executive actions and declare them unconstitutional, and therefore void. So, if you want to get rid of Roe v. Wade, a federal law may not necessarily get you what you want.

The big problem is there isn't much in the way of federal law regarding abortion, so much of what the supreme court decides on this matter is more of an opinion, from my view. — Derrick Huestis

Well, there's Roe v. Wade, which (broadly speaking) holds that a woman has a qualified right to terminate a pregnancy, and that after the first trimester, the State may regulate abortion for purposes of maternal health, and the body of case law which has applied it since its decision in 1973. Roe v. Wade is precedent, binding on courts. That's about as much as you can get in the way of federal law.

Well, that may be the result if the pro-life folks and their politicians and judges are satisfied with "merely" over-turning Roe. It seems to me that the right-wing is increasing inclined to use government power to impose their will on us all, and it may want to flex its muscles.

Loathsome and disturbing but how was it contrived, allowed to pass - what was the process ? — Amity

Well-heeled and influential fanatics, convinced of the righteousness of their cause, will always find venal politicians who will do their bidding--whatever it may be--in return for their support.

Since neither of them possess that key piece of information, neither can be blamed for their demands. They're both in the dark - expect some fumbling, stumbling, falls, cuts and bruises, the ongoing Texas circus show is just another way ignorance manifests itself. — TheMadFool

Well, one can insist that their demands, if they result in the adoption of laws, comport with the Constitution. That legal issue will remain as long as the Constitution is around regardless of whether souls exist. even if the Angels and Archangels, Thrones and Dominions, and all the Powers of Heaven proclaim that they do.

It provides no such relief for defendants, even if they win.

That's what I think I've been saying. It doesn't mean the defendant would have to pay the plaintiff's costs and fees if the plaintiff loses, though.

It's not unusual for a statute to provide for an award of attorney's fees to a successful litigant in what are normal laws in which private citizens have been given a right to sue as "private attorney generals."

But this law can fairly be characterized as a grotesque parody of such laws, cynically adopted to grant standing to sue where it normally wouldn't exist, imposing a statutory minimum for damages to be awarded (more a fine or forfeiture than actual damages, which would have to be proved), and hamstringing the possibility of a defense if not precluding one ab initio.

There's something loathsome about this law; something disturbing about its contrivance.

So if the defendant wins, he can't get his court costs paid by the person who brought the case, but if the defendant loses, he has to pay the court costs of the person who brought the case? — Michael

No I don't think that's the case. The defendant can't obtain reimbursement for the defendant's costs and fees if the defendant manages to prevail, though.

Dammit. You're making me read and interpret a law without being paid for doing so.

This is not a criminal law, correct? — Hanover

In all honesty, I'm not sure what the hell it is. It's worded as a criminal law would be, I think. But it reads as though a criminal law was drafted initially, but then altered to make it enforceable by private citizens, but as much of a law as would impose a fine for prohibited conduct as it could otherwise be.

Abortion clinics may continue to operate in Texas, and they will no doubt be sued, but any judgment would be appealable on the basis of the Constitutional violation, meaning no actual judgment could be enforced prior to the Court eventually ruling. — Hanover

According to the law:

"a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an
abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal
heartbeat for the unborn child as required by Section 171.203 or
failed to perform a test to detect a fetal heartbeat."

I find the summary of the law by the House Research Organization of the Texas House of Representatives more readable than the law itself. The summary seems accurate on a quick review of the text (if I'm looking at the right text--I'm not sure what an "Enrolled" law is in Texas. According to the HRO:

"SB 8 would establish the Texas Heartbeat Act, which would prohibit a
physician from performing an abortion on a woman who was pregnant
with an unborn child who had a detectable fetal heartbeat. The bill would
require a physician, before an abortion was performed, to conduct a test to
determine whether a fetal heartbeat was detected."

"Under the bill, a physician could not
knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the
physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child or failed to
perform a test to detect a fetal heartbeat. A physician would not violate
this provision if the physician did not detect a fetal heartbeat while
performing the required test."

However, according to the HRO:

"No enforcement of provisions
relating to the detection of a fetal heartbeat or of certain Penal Code
provisions in response to violations of the bill could be taken or threatened
by the state, a political subdivision, a district or county attorney, or an
executive or administrative officer or employee of the state or a political
subdivision against any person, except as provided in the bill."

But, says the HRO:

"The bill would authorize any person,
other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in
the state, to bring a civil action against any person who:
 performed or induced an abortion in violation of the bill's
provisions;
 knowingly engaged in conduct that aided or abetted the
performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or
reimbursing the abortion costs through insurance or otherwise,
regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that
the abortion would be performed or induced in violation; or
 intended to engage in the conduct described above.
The bill would allow a person to bring a civil action until the sixth
anniversary of the date the cause of action accrued." (I've seen "fourth anniversary date" as well, somewhere).

The text of the law provides that a successful private enforcer of the law would be entitled to:

"(1) Injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the
defendant from violating this subchapter or engaging in acts that
aid or abet violations of this subchapter;
(2) Statutory damages in an amount of not less than
$10,000 for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced
in violation of this subchapter, and for each abortion performed or
induced in violation of this subchapter that the defendant aided or
abetted; and
(3) Costs and attorney ’s fees."

But, according to the HRO: "A court could not award costs or attorney's fees under the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure or any other rule adopted by the supreme court to a
defendant in a civil action." Also: "Any person, including an entity, attorney, or law
firm, who sought declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent this state from
enforcing certain laws that regulate or restrict abortion would be jointly
and severally liable to pay the costs and attorney's fees of the prevailing
party, as defined in the bill."

In addition:

"SB 8 would prevail over any conflicting law. The state would
have sovereign immunity, a political subdivision would have
governmental immunity, and each officer and employee of the state or a
political subdivision would have official immunity in any action, claim, or
counterclaim or other type of legal action that challenged the validity of
Health and Safety Code ch. 171 or its application."

A complicated bit of legal draftsmanship.

Abortion clinics may continue to operate in Texas, and they will no doubt be sued, but any judgment would be appealable on the basis of the Constitutional violation, meaning no actual judgment could be enforced prior to the Court eventually ruling. — Hanover

Well, where I come from, judgments may be enforced even on appeal unless a court rules otherwise. So it may be that such relief would have to be sought--and who could say what court would stay enforcement of a judgment under a law the enforcement of which the Supremes refused to stay?

You may read the law and come to your own conclusions, but it seems to me to be drafted in such a manner (by prohibiting award of attorney's fees to defendants, making defense lawyers liable for costs and fees, by limiting affirmative defenses which may be raised, putting the burden of proof on the defendant, and other means) that an action to enforce the law will be very difficult in not impossible to defend against.

My primary quarrel with the Supremes is their failure to act.

A new Taney Supreme Court. He of Dred Scott "fame." — tim wood

Yes, though property and money were at issue then.

On the other hand, we do have citizen suit provisions in many environmental statutes. While I don't think they allow a bounty, per se, they do allow for attorney's fees and costs. Texas may be saying "Two can play at that game." — James Riley

There are statutes allowing for enforcement by private citizens in certain circumstances, yes. However, they're generally premised on the fact the prohibited conduct poses a risk to or a limitation on the rights of those granted the authority to enforce the law. Open government laws, environmental laws as you point out.

Abortions won't pose a risk to or threaten private citizens who seek to enforce this Texas law, however. It may offend them, they may think it unethical or a violation of God's laws, they may think it's murder, but we don't (or haven't) granted private citizens the right to prosecute others for murder or for religious or philosophical reasons. Perhaps Texas is nostalgic for the days of the vigilantes.

Science, as posted by 180 Proof, is metaphysics that works (generally). I agree with that, while of course others may disagree. Religion is another form of metaphysics, and some think it works and others disagree. What seems certain to me is that those that succeed value life, and people, and other species, and knowledge, and freedom, while those who fail value war, or obscurantism, or hatred, for instance. So there are differences between different metaphysical speculations, and there are consequences. — Olivier5

It strikes me that metaphysics, though it may purport to explain (or question) why science or other things "work", doesn't "work" itself. Merely to claim that other things like science or religion "work" provides no support for metaphysics, though.

This is to be added to the list of things I wish I had said.

Why is it fortunate? — Corvus

The comment was more a riposte to the claim that "Metaphysics will never die" than anything else. I'm one who questions the value of metaphysics generally. It isn't clear to me that it consists of anything but speculation, and it seems speculation to no effect. There's nothing wrong with speculation to no effect in itself, of course, but the fact that it may always take place and thereby never "die" doesn't strike me as something of note, or something to be celebrated or to take pride in. And the fact metaphysicians will, like all of us, die at least provides a certainty and reliability otherwise lacking in metaphysics.

Metaphysics will never die. — Corvus

Fortunately, though, metaphysicians always will.

The things of ultimate concern, Ciceronianus? I believe they include Epicureanism, Eudaimonia, and cats on mats, no? Or maybe it is desire is the root of all suffering and self-abnegation is the way out. I never can remember. — Ennui Elucidator

Cats, whether on or off mats, certainly. Epicureanism has its charms, but isn't what I'd call religious. Stoicism has a religious component, if Cleanthes is any example of a Stoic, and a Divine Reason is more attractive in a religious sense than Epicurus' sublimely disinterested deities.

But I suspect what is of ultimate concern to us is ourselves, our well-being, our continued survival in comfort (even after death), and our significance to others and the world, and these concerns aren't solely or peculiarly the focus of religious discussion.

Is there someplace I can look to make sure that the post was actually entered into the system and whether a decision is pending? — Ennui Elucidator

Well, I'd guess it's like Purgatory, and foreknowledge of release from it is unavailable.

In the good old days, the rituals of the Catholic Church were conducted in Latin, and incomprehensible to almost all the congregation -Kyrie Eleison and all that. — unenlightened

Kyrie Eleison is Greek, sorry. For "Lord Have mercy." As for the rest of the mass, helpful translations into English were included in each St. Joseph's Missal back then, along with the Latin. I'm just saying. Old altar boy, you see.

religion as a locus for the discussion of things of ultimate concern. — Ennui Elucidator

Ah, those things. What are they, by the way?

Plato was an aristocrat, and quite well off. Not for nothing did Diogenes the Dog mock him for his vainglory (and other things), trampling on the carpets of Plato's house.

A person who has no need to make money often looks down upon those who must make money. We pay people for their knowledge all the time, and have always done so. For example teachers, doctors, lawyers are all paid for using what they know to the advantage of their students, patients and clients. It would be wonderful if we didn't have to pay for anything, but the idea that philosophy is a "higher knowledge" they shouldn't be paid for is silly, for more than one reason.

Just wondering if there's a thing beside itself or under or above or behind itself. I suppose they all may be things outside itself, now that I think of it. Is there a thing itself, one that's neither inside nor outside itself, but merely a thing? In that case, there would be a thing inside itself, a thing, and a thing outside itself. I think there must be, because it otherwise makes no sense to use the word "itself" and maintain that for a thing there is an inside and outside. Three different things? Or three things different, but nonetheless a single thing, like the Trinity?

It wasn't unusual for ancient philosophers to believe in the existence of a single god, yet also accept as appropriate the worship of more than one god as part of traditional religion. I don't think that the question whether gods were one or many was one they were all that interested in, though they were inclined to think much of traditional pagan religion to be superstition. Sometimes, traditional gods were considered by philosophers to be aspects of the one god. I don't think the pagan philosophers were concerned about the propriety of a particular religious belief in the way Christians were, and so didn't insist that everyone think and act alike. Epicurus believed that the gods existed, but were unconcerned with human affairs. The Stoics believed in a single, immanent deity but were content to worship the gods in the traditional manner.

Yes. There was Radagast the Brown, in any case. There were also a couple of "Blue Wizards" who it seems went to the east of Middle Earth but Tolkien doesn't say much of anything about them.

Btw, weren’t you previously known by the cognomen, “The White”? Why, if I may inquire, did you drop it? — Leghorn

I was Ciceronianus in the old PF, and when that ended and the new version began I decided I would return as "the White" as a kind of homage to Tolkien. But I tired of that designation, and am not a wizard in any case, though I think I am a Ciceronian. For me, to be one isn't as distressing as it apparently was to St. Jerome.

Certainly no argument should be determined ad populum. But then, consider that when it comes to Jesus, the standards are quite low, and often ridiculous. Heidegger commands the respect of generations of philosophers, is a seminal thinker which changed the face of philosophical thought. I mean the body of post Heiedggerian thought is staggering.

And btw: you don't think Jesus is our savior? This entirely depends on how this is interpreted. — Constance

Jesus has been thought rather significant himself, you know, and has been esteemed and worshipped since long before Heidegger lived to inspire us with such statements as "The Fuhrer himself and he alone is the German reality, present and future, and its law" and "The Nothing itself nothings."

And my little comment wasn't about Jesus, but about what is said of him by his acolytes and its similarity to what you said of H.

There is a reason Heidegger is considered a giant, the the only thing that stands in the way is oneself, and one's rationalizations for not making the considerable effort. — Constance

One hears the same sort of thing from those who explain what supposedly keeps us from accepting Jesus as our Savior.