Again, absolutely not. I see an overemphasis on individualism as one of the cancers of Western society. Nothing in what I said argues in favour of individualism in the libertarian sense. What I am against is stereotyping. Do you understand the difference between being libertarian and being anti-stereotyping?You're advocating liberal individualism — Wayfarer
Because religion at its heart is a communal construct, an institution. In all honesty, I'd argue that religion is most likely inherently institutional to begin with. Spirituality isn't always, however, which I think is what some here are trying to distinguish? — Heister Eggcart
Many were also deists, freethinkers, and various other sorts of non-Christian.The principle of individual rights is attributable to the Christian West, where 'freedom of conscience', 'freedom of association', and so on. Of course it is true that many such reforms were fought tooth and nail by religious conservatives, but the reformers themselves were also Christian. — Wayfarer
Me either, so it's odd to be in the position of "defending" one. I have curbed my anti-theism a bit though. Secular liberal consumer societies are no panacea. — Baden
The principle of individual rights is attributable to the Christian West, where 'freedom of conscience', 'freedom of association', and so on. Of course it is true that many such reforms were fought tooth and nail by religious conservatives, but the reformers themselves were also Christian. — Wayfarer
Many were also deists, freethinkers, and various other sorts of non-Christian. — Arkady
I don't like any religion by the way and think the institutionalisation of religious experiences is the worst social construct invented so far. — Benkei
There are lots of good reasons (and no reasons needed at all, of course) for you to dislike religion, but the rest of this statement isn't sound. Individuals might have private "spiritual experiences", whatever those might be, in isolation from any recognizable belief system. But they can not have "religious experiences" without the institutions of religion, which defines what spiritual, god, holy, prayer, and so forth are. — Bitter Crank
Without Christianity's institutionalization in Western society, Western civilization would never have gotten off of its feet. — Heister Eggcart
Yet mullahs or cardinals ought to be chosen by their merit. Be that piousness or whatever. What comes to my mind is just royalty where the crown is inherited. Yet the custom is a logical way to try to prevent the dangers of powerstruggles when modern power structures didn't exist. Naturally hasn't work allways, but still.To add to my lists of dislikes: authority based on hierarchy or tradition. The basis for authority, other than merit, is one of respect and that has to be earned by offering respect to others. Mullahs, imams, priest, cardinals, rabbis or any one else seeking divine dispensation to promote being a dick to others do not offer the appropriate respect to others and therefore lack all authority. All subject to my personal, but enlightened, judgment. Of course — Benkei
When someone tells me that they are “Not religious, but very spiritual,” I want to punch them in the face. — David Webster, Dispirited
Should we expect any action on this offer in the near future? — Bitter Crank
When someone tells me that they are “Not religious, but very spiritual,” I want to punch them in the face. — David Webster, Dispirited
I would point out, however, that my remarks about freethinkers should not be taken to be limited to the Western hemisphere, as there were European Renaissance humanists, for instance, who were integral in pushing back against the superannuated superstitions of the past in forming the modern world — Arkady
Does being a freethinker somehow preclude someone from being a (neo)-Platonist?Two of the leading renaissance humanists - Ficino and Erasmus - were priests. Della Mirandolla was not. But they were all to a greater or lesser extent platonist or neo-platonist (Ficino translated the Complete Works of Plato into Latin). To be sure they had run-ins with the Church, but in their view, atheism would completely undercut what they understood as 'humanism'. — Wayfarer
I don't know how many full-blown atheists there really were in Renaissance Europe. No doubt some of the "spiritual" people you refer to were actually closet atheists. In some places one risked life and livelihood in criticizing religion. Thomas Aikenhead was hung for blasphemy shortly before 1700 (well into the early modern era). Even Hume appeared to show some trepidation in criticizing religion too openly, couching some of his critiques in the form of his dialogues (which allows for plausible deniability).No, I was simply making the point that the secularism of the renaissance was still informed by a generally spiritual philosophy.
Consider it a footnote. — Wayfarer
Suddenly I remembered that one of the foremost, courageous advocates of tolerance and engagement with moderate Muslims, and openness to Syrian refugees, is Angela Merkel - the new Leader of the Free World, as some (including me) see it. — andrewk
Although the OP isn't about the relationship between 'the Left' and Islam, that alleged relationship has featured strongly in the discussion, and articles with titles like 'The Left has an Islam problem' have been frequently cited. Really those articles should be entitled 'the Compassionate and Open-minded have an Islam problem', in order to capture Angela Merkel and people like her on the 'Right' within the scope of their disdain — andrewk
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.