Oh. But in the ancient world people usually respected foreign gods. If you visited a foreign town, you would first go pay respect to their gods and then go about your business.
Religious intolerance (the idea of false gods) came later. It's not so much about knowing divine will as believing that there is only one true divinity, which might be related to psychological integration. — frank

It is true that pagan polytheism was a lot more hospitable than monotheism is. Sometimes they found parallels, as in Jupiter/Zeus, Poseidon/Neptune, Aphrodite/Venus. Sometimes they adopted foreign gods. Atheism wasn't the main problem then - though some mad philosophers denied they were real. On the other hand, the Romans eradicated the old Druidical religion in Britain and Gaul. But that was because they were so dead set on resisting them. I agree that monotheism seems to be more radical. Whether that belief is a matter of psychological integration is a question far beyond me. The Jews were very special, even unique in the ancient world.

Tyranny can exist under any political system, including democracy. Tocqueville discusses the tyranny of the majority. Plato's philosopher king supposedly had the wisdom to rule and was to be selected by qualification, not democratic vote, which more emulates how religious leaders are chosen. I'm not in favor of theocracy, and I'm fully supportive of the state's power being supreme, but our recent elections hardly yielded a Solomon. — Hanover

Well, Hitler came to power in a democracy not by force but, to simplify history, by vote.

Democracy is not "rule by the majority as mob" (what the USA seems to be currently exhibiting ... debatable, but all the same ...), It could never sustain itself if it were, instead becoming a dictatorship. Nor is democracy defined by voting. Democracy, instead, is any variant of a rather elaborate system which keeps the tyrannical drives of all participants and parties at bay via a non-hypocritical system of checks and balances of power. This is the only way a democracy can remain - be it that of ancient Athens or any non-Orwellian so-called democracy of today. I say this because some self-termed democracies - I'll here point fingers at Russia - are as non-democratic in practice as all official self-termed communisms of at least Europe were non-communistic in practice. (Addressing communism as politics rather than as economy: The comradeship of fellow brethren (or siblings) - of fellow comrades - in a given nation all working cooperatively together in a commonly upheld community never, ever, occurred.The only place were communism can be viably stated to have occurred is in the kibbutz - and nowhere else.) ((Unlike democracy as just described, communism is a bit too optimist in regards to human nature at large for its own good.))

All these being issues and perspectives regarding politics. But having so expressed, I yet maintain that (non-Orwellian) "democracy" is, and can only be, at direct odds with tyranny and tyrannical governance.

And again, the mythoi we tell ourselves - such as the mythos that the world is a dog-eat-dog reality (to here address a non-religious/spiritual mythos) - will have a large impact on our personal ethos as individual humans. The dog-eat-dog motif, for example, directly leads to tyrannical wants and desires - and directly opposes the possibility of a cooperative humanity in which agape plays a large role in society.

But of course you know that many religious people maintain that complete faith in God erases these fears and doubts. The Abraham story pushes this to the limit. Could a father feel any faith in God under such circumstances? — J

The Abraham story pushes the idea that unity with God is achieved through blind obedience. Unity with God is the carrot and obedience is the goal. Shouldn't unity with God be the goal?

I view faith in two ways: First, it can be simply a conviction (belief) that a statement is true, or it can be, as some claim, a belief that something is true based on evidence or good reasons. Some religious people view belief in God as a kind of Wittgensteinain hinge that's foundational to their belief system. To some, it's an arrational bedrock belief.

The Abraham story pushes the idea that unity with God is achieved through obedience. Unity with God is the carrot and obedience is the goal. Shouldn't unity with God be the goal? — praxis

Good question.

In many ways it parallels with the dichotomy between the often heard prescription that one ought to “fear God” (at least as this phrasing is most commonly understood) – wherein there is a necessary duality, else division, between the other which one fears and oneself, a necessary duality that will persist for as long as the fear persists – and the far less touted “love God”, which then not only allows for but is a calling toward a “unity of (sentient) being” (this being one loosely appraised definition of “love”) with that which one loves, in this one case, God.

Obedience of that authority as other which one fears vs. love and hence oneness (in most any of its senses) with that absolute goodness which one loves.

Or, in a more Christianity-specific mindset, the difference between fearing and thereby obeying Christ as one’s God and being someone who holds and thereby upholds Christ’s spirit within in most anything one does. But I get the nagging suspicion that being like Christ in one’s character and nature is a bit too heretical a perspective for most self-proclaimed Christians out there. Which kind of insinuates that being un-Christ-like is the typical calling of most Christians.

It's not all that odd. If someone tells you how things are, it is up to you to decide whether to believe them. — Ludwig V

Perhaps the point might have been expressed better. If someone says the cat is on the mat, there is a fact of the matter that we can check against - take a look and see. If someone says that cat ought be on the mat, there is no similar process available for us. We must instead decide.

There are few folk as dangerous as those who are certain there is no God. How many of those folks turned up on your survey of people who know the will of God?
— Fire Ologist
There are plenty of other, similar motivations for conducting horrors - nationalism/patriotism, for example. I'm aware that some religious people think that atheists are more likely to conduct horrors than religious people. But I don't know of empirical evidence that that's the case. — Ludwig V

Faith in God or some atheistic ideology—both equally dangerous. Those who feel certain there is no God and those who feel certain there is a God and that they know the will of that God and who believe they are justified in force-feeding their beliefs to others are equally ideologues, and thus equally dangerous.

Can you show any instances humanism, secularism, rationalism, or existentialism being as equally dangerous as religions have been throughout history?

I don't count those as ideologies, they are just possible philosophical perspectives. Communism and Nazism—totalitarianisms of any colour—those I would count as ideologies.

Hitler used religious rhetoric so how can that be counted as atheistic?

Marxism is an economic and political ideology, and socialism isn’t incompatible with religious belief.

Funny you reject the actual atheistic ideologies as ideologies and pretend that Nazism and Marxism are necessarily atheistic.

Perhaps the point might have been expressed better. If someone says the cat is on the mat, there is a fact of the matter that we can check against - take a look and see. If someone says that cat ought be on the mat, there is no similar process available for us. We must instead decide. — Banno

Ah, yes - the fact of the matter. To be sure, if it is a question whether the cat ought to be on the mat, there is no fact of the matter. How could there be? But we (each of us) have to decide both, for ourselvees. Nussbaum remarks somewhere in "The Fragility of Goodness" that if someone does something seriouslly morally appalling, we do not understand them - their actions make no sense. The penalty of breaking the laws of logic is nonsense. That is also the penalty of breaking the moral laws. There's another parallel. (I'm paraphrasing, not quoting. I've mislaid my copy of Nussbaum's book).

Some religious people view belief in God as a kind of Wittgensteinain hinge that's foundational to their belief system. To some, it's an arrational bedrock belief. — Sam26

Yes. I would have cited that case and perhaps added the presuppositonalists. But I understand that there are also Christians who think that the existence of God is an empirical proposition - as does Dawkins. There's also the question how these propositions fit alongside the classical a priori beliefs - are they the same or a distinct class. It all gets very muddy.

But having so expressed, I yet maintain that (non-Orwellian) "democracy" is, and can only be, at direct odds with tyranny and tyrannical governance. — javra

If you define democracy as non-ttyranical, then it must you're saying something about a term, not a political system.

Suppose you have a non-tyranical monarchy, would it be a democracy?

If you define democracy as non-ttyranical, then it must you're saying something about a term, not a political system. — Hanover

Your joking? My definition of democracy was this:

Democracy, instead, is any variant of a rather elaborate system which keeps the tyrannical drives of all participants and parties at bay via a non-hypocritical system of checks and balances of power. — javra

Which is very much a political system.

Suppose you have a non-tyranical monarchy, would it be a democracy? — Hanover

About as much as a triangular square would be. Which is to say, no.

To be sure, if it is a question whether the cat ought to be on the mat, there is no fact of the matter. How could there be? — Ludwig V

Well, that the cat ought be on the mat is either true, or it is false... unless you have some alternative?

It would be interesting to juxtapose Nussbaum's comment with Arendt's banality of evil.

Another thread, perhaps.

Hitler used religious rhetoric so how can that be counted as atheistic?

Marxism is an economic and political ideology, and socialism isn’t incompatible with religious belief.

Funny you reject the actual atheistic ideologies as ideologies and pretend that Nazism and Marxism are necessarily atheistic. — praxis

Marxism is explicitly atheistic, even anti-theistic. Hitler's may have used quasi-religios rhetoric, but nazism is not explicitly or specifically theistic.

I don't "reject the actual atheistic ideologies as ideologies "—I have no idea what led you to think that—I don't know what it even means. My only point was that ideologies whether religious or not, being based on some dogma or other, are one of the main problems which plague humanity.

Faith: belief in the unbelievable in order to excuse the inexcusable e.g. "teleological suspension of the ethical"~S.K. (re: cultic/religious practices); also, worship of "magic" (i.e. superstition).

My only point was that ideologies whether religious or not, being based on some dogma or other, are one of the main problems which plague humanity. — Janus

:100:

Yet our perspective is not the full picture and it lacks finality. We do not know what comes after this life. — BitconnectCarlos

In fact, we don't – cannot – know that anything "comes after this life". We do know, however, that we have to live this life together is inevitable; thus, Hillel the Elder's response to the request to say the whole meaning of the Torah while standing on one foot:

What is hateful (harmful) to you, do not do to anyone.

Notice the Rabbi did not say "have faith"...

Well, that the cat ought be on the mat is either true, or it is false... unless you have some alternative? — Banno

If that's true, then there is at least one moral fact. So I would have to defuse it somehow. I can think of various tactics which might answer.
EDIT: I should have said "Whether it is true or false, there is at least one moral fact."

It would be interesting to juxtapose Nussbaum's comment with Arendt's banality of evil. — Banno

Yes, indeed. It would certainly make one think.

Another thread, perhaps. — Banno

I agree.

Suppose you have a non-tyranical monarchy, would it be a democracy? — Hanover

That sounds like the British "constitution".

Well, that the cat ought be on the mat is either true, or it is false... unless you have some alternative? — Banno

It is true from the cat's sleepy perspective, false from the perspective of the visitor to the house. Can you derive a contradiction from that?

That sounds like the British "constitution". — Ludwig V

True that. But the British “constitutional monarchy” is such that the mon-arch (the sole ruler) is a figurehead which has no real power to rule anything. Sort of nullifying the “sole rulership” aspect of the political enterprise.

My only point was that ideologies whether religious or not, being based on some dogma or other, are one of the main problems which plague humanity. — Janus

That wasn’t exactly your original point. You initially said that faith in God or some atheistic ideology (humanism, secularism, rationalism, or existentialism) were equally dangerous.

I guess humanism, secularism, rationalism, and existentialism are so tame that you don’t count them as ideologies and consider them merely philosophical perspectives. Yet you count religions as ideologies.

belief in the unbelievable in order to excuse the inexcusable e.g — 180 Proof

Not always. You won't always have clear cut rational options. Sometimes faith will appear, then go. Normally logic is virtuous, but there are times of higher consciousness wherein another set of laws influence

Not always. — Gregory

Usually.

But the British “constitutional monarchy” is such that the mon-arch (the sole ruler) is a figurehead which has no real power to rule anything. Sort of nullifying the “sole rulership” aspect of the political enterprise. — javra

You already did that when you specified "non-tyrannical", didn't you?
You are looking at it through the wrong lens. The elected Government is a buffer, taking the risk of popular unpopularity and taking the rap when the populace want a change of Government. In exchange, the monarchy gets security and lots and lots of influence and money - oh, and avoids all the boring part of running the country.
The people are enabled to get rid of unpopular rulers without a revolution.
Managed democracy. Perfect. What's not to like?
Just a thought-experiment for fun.

Seems the thread has moved off topic to attempts to explain or even justify totalitarianism... I wonder why that is topical? Seems to be a common theme on the fora at present.

So we might justifiably go off-topic ourselves, a little bit.

There are moral truths, at least, in that some statements are both moral and true. I usually use "Don't kick puppies for fun" as a trite example. "Don't kick puppies for fun" is true. If someone disagrees, that's not so much about the truth of the sentence as about their moral character - that is, they are wrong.

By the same reasoning, the sentence is not something that needs justification. might count it as a given, a hinge, or a bedrock belief.

We might, heading back to the topic of this tread, ponder if it is an act of faith. I think it more an act of common decency. Thoughts?

Ya, I think some moral statements can be counted as hinges. I was recently thinking about hinges and moral theories, but nothing definite. I think any system of belief relies on hinges otherwise you end up with an infinite regress. On the other hand, some beliefs that are counted as hinges aren't hinges in the Wittgensteinian sense. One of the important tests is that they can't be reasonably doubted. Some Christians are using the idea of hinges to support belief in God, but the concept of God can be reasonably doubted. It's not like "This is my hand."

"Don't kick puppies for fun" is true — Banno

Commands aren't truth apt.

Off topic though this might be ...

You already did that when you specified "non-tyrannical", didn't you? — Ludwig V

The point I intended to make is that the British “constitutional monarchy” as it currently stands is not a monarchy proper. To call it a functional monarchy - which as term pretty explicitly specifies a governance under a sole absolute ruler, generally termed a king (far rarer a queen) - is akin to calling today’s Russia a functional democracy. And I hope we can agree that if we start calling a rose “a dog” it yet remains a rose in its characteristics. Hence, a non-tyrannical monarchy being akin to a triangular square, or a married bachelor - this even if the “sole absolute ruler” is taken to be benevolent (by some of his/her subjects at least).

You already did that when you specified "non-tyrannical", didn't you?
You are looking at it through the wrong lens. The elected Government is a buffer, taking the risk of popular unpopularity and taking the rap when the populace want a change of Government. In exchange, the monarchy gets security and lots and lots of influence and money - oh, and avoids all the boring part of running the country.
The people are enabled to get rid of unpopular rulers without a revolution.
Managed democracy. Perfect. What's not to like? — Ludwig V

I’m not going to say this is the way it actually is - don’t know enough about the situation to know - but, given the way you so far put things, it all sounds a bit too much like freeloading to me. That might be something not to like.

Commands aren't truth apt. — frank

So you are saying that it is not true that we ought not kick puppies?

That we cannot make the inference - If one does what one ought not, then one is culpable; it is true that one ought not kick puppies; therefore those who kick puppies are culpable?

So you are saying that it is not true that we ought not kick puppies? — Banno

No, I'm saying that commands aren't truth apt.

it is true that one ought not kick puppies; — Banno

This is the same as asserting that one ought not kick puppies. Asserting that is just another way to phrase the command, "Don't kick puppies."

And commands are not truth apt.