Satisfied swine rather than sad Socratics? IMO, as a species, we owe most of the achievements of civilization to the latter and much of the incorrigible inertia / neglect to (the wallowing of) the former.

This is a great post.

I also think it is highly unlikely that either science or religion will cease to be major aspects of human life as long as civilization as we know it is able to continue. If civilization collapses, science may fall with it, but I think in that scenario religion would gain an even stronger grip.

Satisfied swine rather than sad Socratics? — 180 Proof

And so that's your dogma, which is a corruption of the Mill quote. Mill didn't suggest the swine were those who willed to believe a particular way to advance their happiness, but the swine were the ones who chose a hedonistic path of physical pleasure as opposed to the intellectual path of Socrates.

You metaphor is Biblical by the way, with the unkosher being the pig. Socrates is what in this metaphor, pure intelligence, God himself, your ideal?

This is just to say that choosing a worldview that leads to a more meaningful life need not be represented by swine. That is just your dogmatic bias.

What was at stake was whether a text could have meanings that were not intended, despite the writer having different, even incompatible, intentions - or rather, whether it is legitimate to attribute to the text meanings that the author did not intend. — Ludwig V

Intentional ambiguity is a common tool. In this case, what is intended is ambiguity, meaning that the author intends that multiple readers will produce a multitude of distinct interpretations, each interpretation suited to one's own purpose. It is useful because it allows the author to appeal to a wider audience. The various interpretations from the work may very well be incompatible with each other, but this does not mean that they are incompatible with what the author intended. The author intends that no particular meaning is the correct meaning, so it is only the attitude that my interpretation is the correct interpretation, or more precisely the belief that there is a correct interpretation, which is the incorrect interpretation.

And so that's your dogma ... — Hanover

Not at all. I extrapolated from your "dogma" :smirk:

So even should a belief in God be entirely delusional, if it should lead to greater happiness, and should its disbelief lead to misery, you'd be hard pressed to explain why we should accept the cold hard scientific misery... — Hanover

Well, whatever you do with the old stories, ...

¹⁸ I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.
¹⁹ And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll. — Revelation 22:18-19

(incidentally, self-entitlement/bolstering is one of the tricks of the trade)

Satisfied swine rather than sad Socratics? IMO, as a species, we owe most of the achievements of civilization to the latter and much of the incorrigible inertia / neglect to (the wallowing of) the former. — 180 Proof

I go back and forth on that. Who wants to be depressed, but the thought of losing my intellect horrifies me.

:up:

'Thou shalt not think for thyself' – no thanks.

Well, see, whether atheists disbelieve because the scriptures and canon and practice of a religion are not congruent with perceived reality, or they don't see the stories, commandments and tenets of a faith as conducive to human happiness and betterment, or find them self-contradictory or because they object to religious indoctrination of the young, or to religious organizations' interference with secular legislation - as long as your objection is consistent and persistent, it's atheist dogma.

Whereas the infinitely intepretratable, adaptable, reframable, malleable, divisible, re-inventable, religious narrative never can be, since it instructs each believer in believing whatever he wants to. Aesop is a static pedant in comparison, even if he did teach better lessons.

:up:

If you can't see that, then of course you won't agree — Janus

You are correct, I absolutely don't agree.

were once devout, or at least heavily conditioned by religion when they were young, and I'm betting you fit in that category. — Janus

Pay up, You lost your bet, perhaps donate some of your money to the on-line atheist community. I have been atheist since I could think about the topic of god posits. All my family were non-believers to a lesser degree and in the case of my mother, around the same 99.999% conviction level as I.
I wont start to list and post evidence to respond against your:

I just don't see religion as being a major contributor to the array of problems humanity faces. — Janus

I realise I would be wasting my time.

Explain why the person who lives a fulfilled life, positively contributing in every way to society, and who does that as the consequence of his deluded belief in the most basic anthropomorphic God and simplest literal interpretation of scripture, is worse than the strict scientific empiricist who suffers terribly from the hard knowledge that life is devoid of purpose. — Hanover

I would put Gandhi or perhaps such as Martin Luther King as exemplar lives that you attempt to describe above. I consider both of these men to be exceptional human beings.
I remain saddened that neither man could understand that their motivation/drive to try to improve the lives of their fellows, was fully credited to themselves and not a god.
There are many such exceptional men and women and hesh who have contributed as much of themselves to assist others as Gandhi or MLK, who were totally godless.
Life was never devoid of purpose to humans who are alive. We created purpose.

I suppose the main difference between us is that I care a lot more about what is true than you do.

we owe most of the achievements of civilization to the latter and much of the incorrigible inertia / neglect to (the wallowing of) the former. — 180 Proof

:clap:

I go back and forth on that. Who wants to be depressed, but the thought of losing my intellect horrifies me. — RogueAI

:clap:

Whereas the infinitely intepretratable, adaptable, reframable, malleable, divisible, re-inventable, religious narrative never can be, since it instructs each believer in believing whatever he wants to. — Vera Mont

Best exemplified every time science makes a new discovery about the universe. Folks like William Lane Craig tries to play catch up and search for another gap he can run to and find god can still be reshaped into it.

'Thou shalt not think for thyself' – no thanks. — 180 Proof

Of course, that's fine for you, and for me. What percentage of the population do you think can, and wants to, think for itself?

All my family were non-believers to a lesser degree and in the case of my mother, around the same 99.999% conviction level as I. — universeness

I.
I wont start to list and post evidence to respond against your:
I just don't see religion as being a major contributor to the array of problems humanity faces.
— Janus

I realise I would be wasting my time. — universeness

That's all right; there is always the odd "exception that proves the rule". (Come to think of it, I don't know what that little ole chestnut means, but it sounds nice).

Sounds like an admission of inability to me, given that you are always crowing about arguing against those who you believe won't change their minds, for the benefit of other readers. A real evangelist you are, but unfortunately without substantive evidence or argument, which is not an uncommon attribute with evangelists.

Science does not do politics very well. Margret Thatcher was a chemist. she had opinions about what was wrong with society - which was that people thought it existed.

I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. — Thatcher, 1987

Rationalist politics is necessarily dehumanising, because the defining feature of life is emotion. to be alive is to care about something. Having a home, for example. Accordingly, a worldview that rejects everything that is not rational or factual, is inimical to life.

I do wonder what Maggie thought a government was for, if not for solving people's problems - her personal hobby, I suspect.

Sounds like an admission of inability to me, given that you are always saying that you argue against those who you believe won't change their minds, for the benefit of other readers. A real evangelist you are, but unfortunately without substantive evidence or argument, which is not uncommon with evangelists. — Janus

Your bad attempts to goad me are just that, bad attempts, but then you do use a two faced god as your representation image. Perhaps you are just trying to live up to that image.

Rationalist politics is necessarily dehumanising, because the defining feature of life is emotion. to be alive is to care about something. Having a home, for example. Accordingly, a worldview that rejects everything that is not rational or factual, is inimical to life. — unenlightened

I think that's a good point, my list of things that cause frequent harm to humanity include, nationalism, scientism, marketing, capitalism, materialism. And, unlike you, I would add religion as one of humanity's many problematic ideas. Do I want to ban it? No. Do I hate religion? No. But I admit to often being bigoted about it. And bigoted about capitalism, marketing, materialism, etc. I feel similar shudders whether I am driving past a church, an advertising agency or a shopping mall.

unlike you, I would add religion as one of humanity's many problematic ideas. — Tom Storm

I think religion is highly problematic. This is very binary, and rather the problem with this thread - and that is my fault for framing things that way. But pointing out a binary conflict that leads to sterile arguments, I did not honestly expect a dozen pages rehearsing the the sterile arguments.

I have made no defence of religion. I am appealing for an attempt at understanding the meaning of religious texts to people, which I believe is rather more than mere the commercial advertising bullshit of the marketplace. Just as I would recommend understanding the Communist Manifesto, or The Rights of Man.

Do economists really believe in the invisible hand? This is a fatuous ignorant insulting question, surely.

I have made no defence of religion. I am appealing for an attempt at understanding the meaning of religious texts to people, which I believe is rather more than mere the commercial advertising bullshit of the marketplace. — unenlightened

Cheers, yes. I think this is also a good point.

Do economists really believe in the invisible hand? This is a fatuous ignorant insulting question, surely. — unenlightened

Hmm...I studied economics back in the 1990's and what I found was a largely faith based dogma.

This is very binary, and rather the problem with this thread - and that is my fault for framing things that way. — unenlightened

I think this forum is full of folk who want the best for our planet - they proffer answers based on their own experience, intuitions and judgements. It all seems so 'self-evident'. Then there's the issue of tribalism and dualistic thinking and it can get messy. Not your fault.

I studied economics back in the 1990's and what I found was a largely faith based dogma. — Tom Storm

[The rich] consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity…they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. — Adam Smith

Of all the criticisms one might make of this, and they are serious and fundamental, I think the weakest and most pointless would be to argue that invisible hands do not exist. But the comparison is apt and you are right. Economics is entirely faith based - but they call it "confidence".

Economics is entirely faith based - but they call it "confidence" — unenlightened

And when it works, it's a 'confidence trick'.

And when confidence is lost, the economy goes to hell.

Hmm, are these two synonymous, in the sense of exchangeable with each other in usage, "faith" and "confidence"? Or, does one have a broader range of usage than the other? I would say that "confidence" is often directed towards oneself, internally, as an attitude toward one's own actions, while "faith" is most often directed outward, as an attitude towards what is external to oneself.

If that is the case, then how is it that the health of "the economy", which is an attribute of the community as a whole, can be dependent on an attitude which the individual has toward oneself? There is something missing here, a hidden premise or something like that, which links the attitude which the individual has toward oneself (confidence or lack of confidence) to the wealth of the community as a whole. "Confidence" is just as easily directed in competitive directions as it is directed in cooperative directions, so it could be destructive to the community. So it cannot be confidence alone which supports the economy, there is a missing ingredient. Therefore it's not only a loss of confidence which could make the economy go to hell, but confidence maintained, along with the other ingredient missing, will also make the economy go to hell.

I've always used 'confidence' as one of several definitions of faith. I think that does fine.

I would say that "confidence" is often directed towards oneself, internally, as an attitude toward one's own actions, while "faith" is most often directed outward, as an attitude towards what is external to oneself. — Metaphysician Undercover

I generally have confidence in things outside myself - relationships, the sun coming up, catching a plane, my roof holding the rain back.

Another attempt on dogmatics, from the morning walk: Dogma is opinion which is treated as if it's known.

What percentage of the population do you think can, and wants to, think for itself? — Janus

I suspect most want to, but not enough can.

I remain saddened that neither man could understand that their motivation/drive to try to improve the lives of their fellows, was fully credited to themselves and not a god. — universeness

The question dealt with what harm there was from the good acts that resulted from the belief in god, and your response here is that it makes you sad. Other than that consequence, you need to describe the negative impact of their religious motivation. If there isn't one, then you have a pragmatic justification for a belief in God. It's entirely irrelevant whether one could have done the same thing without such a belief. What is relevant is that in those instances, that was that motivation.

If people do right for what you designate as the wrong reason, you are left with an absolutist definition of wrong, which suggests consequences are irrelevant, but that there is a over-riding principle that determines what is a right reason. This over-riding principle has already been identified in other posts, and it is what we are referencing as "atheistic dogma." That dogma holds that any belief not empirically justifiable is to be discarded, regardless of the utility it might have in bringing about good to the world or to the individual believer.

If you don't feel you must give justification for this principle I have just identified, then that is the very definition of dogma.

If you suggest that any use of non-empirically based justifications for beliefs will necessarily result in some negative consequence, you will have to show empirically what that it is. If you can't, you will be in violation of your own principle, and you will actually be invoking faith as your basis. That is, if you are sure that at some level the acceptance of belief without empirical proof will lead to negative consequences somewhere down the road, and you have no empirical basis for that belief, you are simply bowing down to your principle as infallible without proof.

[The rich] consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity…they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. — Adam Smith

Of all the criticisms one might make of this, and they are serious and fundamental, I think the weakest and most pointless would be to argue that invisible hands do not exist. — unenlightened

It's very convenient to misdirect criticism to the metaphor - look, look, is that in an invisible hand? - no, it's a moving finger, writing... or picking your pocket... - so that one may ignore the blatant lie at its core.
Just as Leviticus gives a nice little nuanced example of why not to tattle on your neighbours, and while we focus on that, we ignore the smoking pile of horribly slaughtered sacrificial cattle behind it.
Both canons tell us how to live - so long as we interpret them "correctly" - which is to say, just fluidly enough.

Another attempt on dogmatics, from the morning walk: Dogma is opinion which is treated as if it's known. — Moliere

E.g. I'm certain that I do not believe any of the deities described by any of the religions I know about actually exist. I do not believe that the directives attributed to these gods should be the rules by which I live my life, except insofar as they correspond with my concept of good behaviour. I know that this is the conviction that I hold.

I know that this is the conviction that I hold — Vera Mont

Would you count the convictions that you know you hold as opinion or knowledge? I'd expect you to know what your convictions are. I know some of my convictions, but I would say they are an opinion which I know I hold rather than something I know is true.

I'm attempting another distinction, other than fact/value, in an effort to understand dogmatism as a universal human tendency. In this way I wouldn't exempt myself from having dogma. I have opinions, and conviction is what motivates one to make an opinion true. We are creatures which care, whether we like it or not. And if dogma is just opinion being treated like it's not opinion then we all do that when we care about it.

The negative connotation of dogma probably comes from thinking one is exempt, that one has knowledge of what is properly thought of as opinion. At least that's what the morning thought was.