What you have done is provided further evidence of special pleading, of a double standard, a public conversation and a somehow distinct, evasive religious one. — Banno
What clarity of thought do we gain by impoverishing our thinking to the lowest common denominator of English speakers? — Ennui Elucidator
...our common stock of words embodies all the distinctions men have found worth drawing, and the connexions they have found worth making, in the lifetimes of many generations: these surely are likely to be more sound, since they have stood up to the long test of the survival of the fittest, and more subtle, at least in all ordinary and reasonably practical matters, than any that you or I are likely to think up in our arm-chairs of an afternoon—the most favoured alternative method.
But to them that's like burning a pile of trash. Ie., not a bad thing, not at all, but something useful.
Where you and the Christians differ is in the qualitative evaluation of some past events. — baker
And we have the hole in our literary heritage. — Banno
If there is no God, everything is permitted. — Dostoevsky
The fact that we are indeed able to concieve of wrong and right provides all the justification for moral behavior necessary. A true justification, ungrounded in superstition, for acting morally is that every time a person violates his own moral understanding, and we have all done so at one time or another, he makes subsequent violations easier to rationalize. That is to say, every time we give free reign to our Id, we weaken the ability of our Superego to influence our behavior, corrupting ourselves even further. The avoidance of such self corruption seems justification enough to strive to behave morally. — Michael Zwingli
secular ethics, all things considered, is a much better deal than religious ethics. The matter of factual correctness of religions is then moot, pointless. — TheMadFool
Morality is, at the end of the day, transcendence of the self and that's why, my hunch is, it's so hard to grasp... — TheMadFool
Which aspect of my psychologically based take on ethics do you disfavor? — Michael Zwingli
...if I have to say something, morality isn't about Id, Ego, or Super Ego; it's something beyond all three and thus, to reiterate, neither of these 3 parts of our personality can get a handle on what morality is... — TheMadFool
Yes, I absolutely agree. I did not mean to suggest that these aspects of the mind produce morality, or that ethics depends thereupon. I only I donate that it is the "higher mind" from which the individual sense of ethical behavior, subsequent to moral instruction of course, proceeds, and that the wanton violation of that sense weakens it, and strengthens the primal mind in comparison. — Michael Zwingli
So, it appears that the extent to which the Christians actually burned classic literature is in dispute among scholars: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Darkening_Age — Hanover
:gasp:One can claim the only destruction which occurred was not that bad, of course. — Ciceronianus
I took for granted the validity of your claim that the Christians destroyed much of Classic literature, but upon looking it up, I see that claim is disputed somewhat: — Hanover
I really don't see any sort of systematic "denial of historical fact" which you are so bent on. We do not need to go back, 1500, or more years to find abhorrent misdeeds carried out by those in the higher levels of Christian religious organizations, as you say right here. But I really don't see the denial of fact. They tend to rationalize the incidents or refuse to speak about them, which is still not quite denial.It is an inherited denial of historical fact. — Banno
Pretending that religion is not factual leads to the denial of the results of religious belief.
I've pointed to the discussion of Confirmable and influential Metaphysics previously. Religious beliefs can be assessed by their outcomes. Christianity resulted in charities, hospitals, schools, persecution and oppression.
We've previously agreed that it behaves much as any other human institution. — Banno
I've pointed to the discussion of Confirmable and influential Metaphysics previously. Religious beliefs can be assessed by their outcomes. Christianity resulted in charities, hospitals, schools, persecution and oppression. — Banno
What candle does Christian destruction hold to the destruction wrought by science? — Ennui Elucidator
"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!"And the enlightenment resulted in hospitals, schools, general enfranchisement and Hitler. — Ennui Elucidator
The goal of science? Science (as a whole) is not a goal driven enterprise. Science is about making discoveries....what if the goal of a science isn't to be factually correct? — Banno
Science, for instance, lead to the mustard gas, the atom bomb, flame throwers, paper shredders, tnt, LRAD, and the electric chair. — Ennui Elucidator
...what if the goal of a science isn't to be factually correct? — Banno
"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" ~Wolfgang Paul — 180 Proof
Religions - and ideologies - can be confirmable and influential; hence they may be judged.
↪Metaphysician Undercover too, for what it's worth. — Banno
Facts, to me, are uninteresting. What is interesting is what matters and whether we can accomplish our goals. — Ennui Elucidator
But what if the goal of a religion is not to be factually correct, but to give people moral guidance, thumos and social cohesion? — stoicHoneyBadger
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.