Sure, but the point is that there is a whole culture of people refusing to play by the rules. We cannot just ignore them, nor their success.
— baker

OK, what is it you suggest? — Isaac

I don't know what the solution would be. But for starters, better boundaries, holding back, less communication, fewer attempts at communication, more of minding one's own business. And I mean all this is a good sense, in the sense of protecting one's time and resources.

Then you don't have much of a case for fairness.
— baker

I don't see how. Are you saying that I can only make a case the we ought have something if it's actually indispensable. That seems like an unreasonably high threshold.

Your stance strikes me as unduly idealistic, bound to fail in the real world.
You expect Christians to openly engage in discussion of their beliefs, including justifying them to outsiders. I point out that Christians are loathe to do that. They simply won't engage in discussion the way you think would be fair. So it's on us to do something differently, lest we end up at a disadvantage (which usually comes in the form of wasted time and resources).

I think it's reasonable for people to venture an opinion on the contents of the bible as any other book, without needing to become part of some peculiar game of make-believe.

I'll argue that it is reasonable _not_ to venture an opinion on the contents of the bible as any other book, unless one is part of the epistemic and normative community associated with that book, or unless one otherwise becomes part of some peculiar game of make-believe.

My interest here is as to the extent to which Christians (and Muslims) ought be allowed at the table when ethical issues are discussed. — Banno

But realistically, how much say do we have in such situations?

When you're actually on a board or a committe that discusses ethical issues, I imagine that at that level, there are going to be so many legal and procedural restrictions and guidelines in place that your objection to the effect of "But this person worships an evil god!" is misplaced. Perhaps if you're powerful enough, you can vote to remove the person in question from the board or committee, but beyond that, it's not clear how much you can actually do or how much your opinion of their religious status matters.

As for discussing ethical issues in a less formal setting: In such settings (such as between friends and family), the nature of the relationship between those involved is likely to be primary. For example, if you and your religious brother need to decide whether to place your elderly parents into a facility for the elderly, will whether your brother is religious or not really matter in your decision, or will it be the case that what will matter more that he is your brother?

Sure, but my religion does agree with me. And has for a few thousand years. — Ennui Elucidator

What "religion" would that be??

The claim of being “right” for all of time lacks the sort of humility required from fallible people in an ever changing world.

The whole point of religion is about being right, for all times!!

This is just incorrect and largely why you're not afforded a seat at the table when offering interpretations of biblical sources. There's nothing meaningfully distinct between how legal documents are interpreted as opposed to religious except for the fact that you have respect for the Anglo tradition of legal interpretation, but not for the systems in place for biblical interpretation. — Hanover

I want you to acknowledge the following point:

I agree with your take, and I believe in the supremacy of the emic. I think other people's religion is other people's religion and none of my business. However, usually, they don't think this way. No. They expect me to believe that their religion is the one and only right one and that I need to convert to it, or at least bow to it. They are the ones who don't respect the boundary between church and state, they are the ones who don't respect the boundary between their ingroup and the outgroup.

This has been very obvious in this time around Christmas, when high Christian clerics gave their Christmas speeches on national television in what is a nominally secular country. In those speeches, they did not address only the members of their ingroup, but everyone. They spoke as if Jesus' birth was a source of hope for everyone, and so on. There was also no warning from the national television that the speeches of these clerics were addressed only to their respective ingroups.

Why not? Are we, as outsiders to religion, and as viewers of national television, somehow supposed to understand that these clerics are addressing only their respective ingroups and that we should tune out for the time their speech is being televised?

And why do those clerics talk as if what they say applies for everyone, and not just their respective ingroups?

I don't watch Christian channels because I don't feel addressed by what they're saying there. But I expect that national, secular television should uphold the proper boundaries as far as religion goes; or else, what the clerics say there should be taken at face value (and thus subject to legitimate criticism).

Who is writing your posts? [...]
— baker

You need to differentiate the writer and what's written (the topic at hand). — jorndoe

No, it's crucial to the topic at hand.

E.g. Banno's take on it:

You have to then insist on the authority of your own conventions over those of the folk who would stone adulterers. — Banno

If arguments or words alone could settle things on their own somehow, people would be redundant.

If you don't see your brain as it truly is how can you say that you see other brains as they truly are? How is it that you have true sight of other people's brains but not of your own when you only have access to the image and not the thing itself? — Harry Hindu

The popular idea seems to be just that: that we can correctly see others "as they truly are".
It's why a formulation in the form of "You are x" isn't merely shorthand for "I think you are x".

If you are able to know about things by only accessing an image of those things, does it really matter that you don't have direct access to those things?

Yes, it matters. Are you not scared by the proposition that you're trapped in indirectness?

There is no one true faith or one interpretation. — Ennui Elucidator

And pretty much every religion/spirituality categorically disagrees with your claim.

The difference is one of pragmatism. I can quite legitimately, intervene in people's interpretation of religious texts. — Isaac

In the name of pragmatism, why would you intervene like that?

I might say to the Pope

No, you couldn't. You can't just get an audience with the Pope.

Yes, but that's because a Ugandan, like it or not, is not under the jurisdiction of the US constitution and you, like it or not, are.

This is not the case with the Bible, which is just a book and people voluntarily follow some, all, or none of it's edicts as they see fit.

The difference is one of pragmatism. I can quite legitimately, intervene in people's interpretation of religious texts. I might say to the Pope "look at this line from the bible, isn't this all nonsense", and he could say "yes, you're right, sod this for a game of soldiers". In contrast, I could provide the best argument in the world to a judge about some line in a legal document and he'd still have to say "well, that's the way the legal community have interpreted it so there's little I can do".

Each individual member of the legal community is constrained to some extent by the others and subject to their interpretation regardless.

Each individual member of a religion could make up a new rule, walk away entirely, or not as they see fit and they'd be in no way bound by traditional interpretations. They could invent a new church, a new cult, an entirely new religion, or abandon the project entirely.

You're treating biblical law as if it applied in the same way as actual law. It doesn't. Biblical law is entirely optional. Take all of it, some of it, none of it, as you see fit. Make it up as you go along, stick to 2000yr old edicts, listen to your pastors, ignore them entirely, whatever you like. As such, there's no reason at all why a complete outsider might not take part in the discussion on the basis of what each line/section/story means to them, it's possible that their unique take might change the understanding of any individual, since there's no practical constraint on what the 'right' interpretation is. — Isaac

The question of what a document means is interpreted by the method agreed upon by those who use the document as to what it means. — Hanover

This is just incorrect and largely why you're not afforded a seat at the table when offering interpretations of biblical sources. There's nothing meaningfully distinct between how legal documents are interpreted as opposed to religious except for the fact that you have respect for the Anglo tradition of legal interpretation, but not for the systems in place for biblical interpretation. — Hanover

Both of your points apply.

On the one hand, there are the Protestants and the Born-Again Christians, for example, who, basically espouse a DIY view of what should count for God's word and God's law. Or, if we look at the multitudes and versatility of religions, there ensues a relativism on account that religions espouse all kinds of views.

On the other hand, there are the Jews, and the specific schools within Judaism, for example, with their very definitive understanding of what should count for God's word and God's law.

We, as outsiders, are exposed to both views and practices by the religious people.
So the Protestants, for example, want us to consider ourselves subject to God's law and that everything said the Bible applies to us. Also, just yesterday, the head of the Orthodox church in his Orthodox Christmas speech on national television, spoke in a manner that his message applied to everyone, not just the members of the Eastern orthodox Church.
While on the other hand, there are those religious people who maintain that outsiders have no business even reading scriptures.

So what are we, as outsiders, supposed to do?

The question of whether a religious institution can be determined as per se evil from a cursory and decontextualized reading of their religious doctrine remains in the negative. — Hanover

Link this back to what we're talking about. — Hanover

The currency of religion is trust.

Learning things like mentioned before (from aggressive proselytizing strategies to priestly abuse of minors) undermines one's trust in a particular religion, or in religions in general.

We are justified to expect a measure of purity and straightforwardness from the very people who promote them.

For me as an external observer (who is perhaps on a spiritual quest), the religious institution has one chance to prove itself trustworthy. Approaching a religion should not be an exercise in ignoring red flags or inventing excuses as to why said religious institution is justified to do whatever it's doing.

If some religious institution truly holds the keys to heaven, then it shouldn't have any blemishes. And by this I mean primarily blemishes that the religious institution itself recognizes as such (e.g. the way the RCC did, by apologizing on numerous occasions by now; I'm not even talking about things that I may consider red flags and blemishes).

If the religious institution wants total trust from us, it needs to earn it. If it wants us to stake our eternity on its teachings, it needs to be flawless (which was actually the line of reasoning for why the RCC denied any wrongdoing for so long).

So it's not about whether a religious institution can be determined as per se evil, it's about whether it earns a particular person's trust or not.

Yay, a revised edition of god's final and infallible word! The irony is endless.

A most wonderful people. — Hanover

As a translator for the local language, I once witnessed a regional organizational meeting of missionaries at the local LDS church.
"Get their trust! Get their phone number!" their leader instructed them.

And some of them say "Democraps" instead of "Democrats".

And then they go and stone little girls. — Hanover

Excommunication can be the consequence for adultery in the LDS church, though.
Bear in mind that in an LDS setting, excommunication can mean that the person will lose their job, their home, their friends, their family (because Mormons tend to be very tightly knit socially and economically).

Excommunication is not stoning, of course, but it can critically worsen the person's socio-economic status, even to the point where they face homelessness or death by suicide for lack of socio-economic options.

26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.” — Matthew 15:21

Oh, so we, the outsiders, are the dogs? And the Lord is our master anyway ...

The fact that someone can be one's guru and another's charlatan just goes to show that there is no objectively determinable fact of the matter about whether anyone is a guru or a charlatan.
— Janus

Or does it just say that determining the difference is very hard? — Tom Storm

No. It's that people so often approach the matter of enlightenment in an externalizing manner. They refuse to look at their own intentions, their own words, their own actions, and just focus on the other person. Seeking the answers out there.

"Is this person a genuine teacher or is he a charlatan?" is the wrong question. The right question is more along the lines of, "Whom am I looking for? A genuine teacher, or do I just want someone who will provide me with another fancy layer of denial and delusion?" Asking oneself the latter question makes the former one redundant.

So I shouldn't say that I am American? — Ennui Elucidator

Like I said, it's about making a point of using a group term for oneself. It's about using a group term for oneself for the purpose of obtaining special rights and benefits for oneself.

It's one thing to check "American" or "male" on some questionnarie. It's quite another to say, "I'm an American, therefore, I'm free to invade other countries and the people there must kneel before me" or "I'm male, and women must worship me."

When people describe themselves with the term "Christian", they tend to mean the latter, ie. that on account of being Christians, they deserve special treatment and have special rights, that they are above ordinary people.

I'm under the impression the OP is thinking about this in more general, even "metaphysical" terms. Ie. when one's survival depends on things one doesn't understand, one is profoundly vulnerable.

What characterises a tendency? How do you use actions to evaluate a 'tendency to act as if' on those states? What scope of behaviours does any particular tendency require for its evaluation? And finally - how does the answer to those questions interface with the argument?

The absence of those answers I think interfaces very clearly with the argument - the lack of answers makes it ambiguous how a believer acts as if (stoning is good) based on their worship of a God who in some context of evaluation approves of stoning. It isn't clear how to get from a tendency to act as if God is worthy of worship to a tendency to act as if stoning is justified. — fdrake

Add to this the problem that we're dealing with events that are potentially rare statistically.

Realistically, how often does a person know an adulteress, and is in a position to stone her?
Perhaps once or twice in the whole lifetime. Definitely not enough to establish a pattern as far as actions go, so we're left with a theoretical examination of a person's beliefs.

But they refuse to do so. Now what?
— baker

I walk away I suppose. I'm not going to progress to fisticuffs. — Isaac

Sure, but the point is that there is a whole culture of people refusing to play by the rules. We cannot just ignore them, nor their success.

What use is fairness, when people can live just fine without it?
— baker

Again, you're misconstruing my intent. I never claimed fairness was indispensable.

Then you don't have much of a case for fairness.

I'm not entitled to an opinion about what the meaning is to me, what it's value is to me. — Isaac

The right to freedom of speech doesn't include the right to be heard.

But again, what does that have to do with Lewis and your extension of his neglected argument to summarily writing off Christians without knowing anything about the individual? — Ennui Elucidator

A person stops being an individual the moment they use a group term for themselves. If someone wants to be treated as an individual, then they shouldn't make a point of calling themselves Christians.


(And that's leaving aside the huge topic of Christians refusing to treat other people as individuals.)

seems the best you can argue is that the bible reinforces a morality you already accept.

That's fine. — Banno

But why then do those people say they're getting their moral principles from the Bible?

Special in what way? That everyone owes them obedience?
— baker

No one owed them obedience. It is like you aren't even trying. Read the book. Find textual support for your glib. If you can't, give it up. If you can, produce it. — Ennui Elucidator

I have no glib. I read the book, a lengthy academic theological edition with ample footnotes and commentary. I prefer the simple and the literal reading. So I noticed there was all that talk about what applies for the Israelites. Paul wrote letters to these and those people. And so on. I was not addressed in any of those writings. As such, I did not feel addressed by the book.

I have noticed, however, a marked difference between how I read the book and how the Christians I know read it. I don't know a single Christian who thinks that what the Bible says doesn't apply to me. Not a single one. They all believe that what the Bible says applies to all of mankind, that all of mankind must follow the rules set out in the Bible. (This is what themes like "Modern people are godless, sinful" are all about.)

In contrast, I distinctly remember a scene from an old biblical film where a character, played by the young Anthony Hopkins, addresses precisely this issue. Namely, a number of religious people argue that everyone must obey the law as set out by God. While Hopkins' character argues that such is not the case, that outsiders are not subject to that law, and also that insiders cannot force the law upon outsiders.
I thought this was extremely strange, because this is precisely not how Christians go about this matter.

Anyway, the point is that you're setting yourself up as the epistemic and moral authority over Christians when you expect them to justify their beliefs to you. Why should they submit to you?

doesn't have anything to do with me in particular, nada. — jorndoe

Who is writing your posts? Who is saying the things that come out of your mouth? Someone other than you? Are you just opening your mouth when objective reality is the one doing the talking?

Who says this didn't really happen and won't happen again if Christians seize power? — Raymond

We already know what that looks like. Right wing political options tend to affiliate themselves with Christianity. You know what that looks like in your respective countries.

No. The Bible was not a universal code and it anticipates the people Israel living in a world with many nations not subject to their local war god's rules for the chosen. That is one of the typical misreadings about the Biblical Israelites - that they wanted everyone to be like them. They didn't. They were special. — Ennui Elucidator

Special in what way? That everyone owes them obedience?

Outlining a theory that actions are driven by beliefs says nothing about restraining or punishing, or even judging, people by their beliefs. — Janus

People are being judged for their beliefs every day, and punished. In job interviews; in relationships with family, friends, acquaintances; in courts. We are already living in the kind of society you asked me whether I wanted to live in.

Let's say that A is 'in church' and B is 'in the vestry'. We could say the priest believes "it's OK to molest boys" when he's in the vestry but believes "we should protect the innocent" when he's in the church - two belief-stories which are contradictory, but never meet. Or we could say the priest believes "it's OK to molest boys when in the vestry and we should protect the innocent when in church" (note the changed quotation marks). So the second story captures the effect of the context within the belief. Then we can interrogate that belief-story because there'll be a hidden belief about the vestry and the church that might yield a better story (less painful dissonance). The vestry is private, the church isn't so maybe it's "it's OK to molest boys when hidden but we should protect the innocent when in view". — Isaac

Or perhaps he doesn't see it as "molestation" at all. Maybe he read a lot about ancient Greek culture where paedophilia is regarded as a good and normal thing. Maybe he doesn't think children are automatically innocent. Maybe he himself was a victim of priestly sexual abuse as a child and is now repeating the pattern. Maybe he lost his faith and is since then in a volatile psychological state, more likely to engage in problematic or even criminal behaviors.

I'm not saying this to excuse the priests. It's just that these are also the realities of religious life.


(I don't know about English literature, but in some languages, there is a whole subgenre of literature the theme of which is the troubled inner life of priests. This is also the theme of some works of art. It seems plausible enough that actual priests have similar problems.)

When people are looking for these stories, they'll more readily pick one off the shelf than make one up themselves. The myths and narratives that a society offers matter a lot to the kind of society that results because of this. It' my belief that a contradictory mythology such a Christianity offers - with the sort of contradictions Lewis is highlighting - offers a narrative which allows for such horrors as priestly child abuse, much more readily than better mythologies might, precisely because of these underlying themes (that God's actually something of a git himself. That he sees the rites, cassocks and prayers as more important that the behaviour...).

When you look at this in the context of Christian culture as a whole, priestly child abuse is, sadly, not some egregious special case. People can be quite rough on eachother, and Christians are no exception. Physical violence, domestic abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, ...

And all of this is just to further point out that those who wish to open up the Bible, read a passage, and then comment on what it must mean in a vacuum without referencing the religious doctrine as a whole aren't providing a meaningful analysis of any known religion. — Hanover

Sure, but the responsibility is also on those who popularize the Bible. Arguably, their responsibility is bigger. The Bible (usually in a simple version without footnotes) is available in many places for free. People are being encouraged to read it.


(One of the reasons Roman Catholicism discouraged literacy and reading the Bible for so long was precisely this concern that if ordinary people are left to themselves reading the Bible, they are very likely going to become confused, lose faith.)

Sometime later, god chose a specific group of people among the nations to make another covenant with (see Exodus) with laws that applied ONLY to that group. Anyone who was not part of the chosen people was not required to follow ANY of the laws given specifically to the chosen people. — Ennui Elucidator

But those non-chosen people are also said to be doomed, are they not? They are automatically classed as the enemies of the Lord, as the enemies of the chosen people, no?

Absent the Christian being a part of the chosen people to which the Bible refers, they are not required to do any of the bad stuff that people keep complaining about.

And there are those who would say that this is a naive literal reading of the Bible!

I keep writing these posts that are somewhat complementary to yours — trying to add in whatever I feel you’ve left out that’s important — and I never really get around to trying to deal head-on with the arguments, such as they are. (And I’ve never given fdrake that response to Mengele I promised.) Maybe it’s just my temperament, but when an argument is at loggerheads like this, I tend to think both sides are wrong (and right, in their own way) and try something else. — Srap Tasmaner

The scary thing is that we're living in times where we feel we need to discuss such topics to begin with.
In an ideal society, the OP and the essay it refers to should not exist, or should be regarded as redundant, because in such a society, people would think, "But of course we should not admire those who worship a god who dooms people to eternal damnation! How can anyone even think to doubt that!!"

But we're living in times where we have to justify our basic moral intuitions with arguments. It's not clear it is possible to succeed in that.

(@Michael, would you join?)

Now, you're strawmanning me. — Baden

No, it was a genuine question seeking clarification. You didn't need to assume evil intent.

The Boss of this forum once said words to the effect that we should stop pretending that this forum is a democracy. So ...

And to point out >>

If you feel a mod is deliberately trying to intimidate you on the basis of being a mod, that's something you can report. But so far, it just sounds like a regular day on TPF.
— Baden

Interesting.

So this is a place where might makes right? That's what you, as moderators, really believe in?

I wasn't being criticized. To criticize me, they would have to refer to something I actually said, a position I actually hold. Instead, someone in a position of power accused me of things I didn't say, and insisted in it, not listening to me at all.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Relying on magic is tricky, it simultaneously gives one a sense of power and of helplessness.

For a conscientious person, not knowing how something works also gives rise for concerns over the safety of it and how to maintain it best (so as to not incur unnecessary expenses). Such a person will also feel a measure of anxiety upon considering that other people might not know how something works and thus act with it in ways that endanger everyone involved.

Take, for example, modern cars and modern drivers. A conscientious old-school driver knows, for example, that if you start a car on an incline, it can first slide back a bit, and that therefore, a greater safety distance toward the car behind is advised. Modern drivers, used to automatic transmissions and atuomatic brake-hold on an incline don't know this, and thus don't maintain sufficient safety distance. So when there is an intersection on a slope, there is greater likelihood of a collision after the car in the front backslides, and possibly this driver's fault.

I just think there is a huge power differential regarding the people that know the technology and those that just consume it. I think it is this that is the real political-economic power in the world- who understands and can produce the technology. — schopenhauer1

Being able to produce the technology seems to be what makes the difference.

Merely knowing how something works doesn't seem to give one much advantage over those who don't. In a consumer society, knowledge of how something works is, at best, a "factoid"; by and large, it's not needed, it's irrelevant. By the time some piece of technology breaks down due to wrong or suboptimal use, it's time to replace it with a newer model anyway.

Perhaps some day you'll get tired of being a dick. Or not.

You're just providing further evidence for my points.

None. You argued that the situation I described as 'fair' was not, in fact, the case. What's 'fair's and what's 'the case' are two different things. So the 'fairness' of x is not made illusory by showing that x is not the case. If you want to argue that x is not fair (ie, it's apparent fairness is merely illusory), then the matter of whether x is the case is immaterial. — Isaac

What use is fairness, when people can live just fine without it?

I can't see a way in which a priest, considering a little 'extra-curricular choir practice' with the boys would actually think "I'll be tortured in hell for eternity if I do this, but at least I'll get my rocks off for a five minuets - whatever, I'll do it". No-one's thinking that way. — Isaac

Actually, it's the kind of thinking that some Christians impute upon outsiders. It's what all those "Knowingly rejecting God's mercy and freely choosing hell" are all about.

- - -

The problem of hell is how to reconcile our ideas of it with the perfect goodness of God. — Srap Tasmaner

By leaving the ivory tower, and going to live in the real world, the world of blood, sweat, and tears.

You didn't answer my question.

Anyway, the point is that you're setting yourself up as the epistemic and moral authority over Christians when you expect them to justify their beliefs to you. Why should they submit to you? — baker

You can't lock someone up on the suspicion that they might do something "problematic". Would you want to live in a society where that was common practice? — Janus

Refer to

Why the protected status, why the concern for Christians being morally judged? Their book's shit, I mean there can't really be any argument about that. It says that girls ought to be stoned to death for Christ's sake! That's a shit book. — Isaac

Or it's a book that forces us to think in terms of existential urgency. A tribe that wants to survive and obtain and keep power has to maintain strict norms regarding everything that pertains to reproduction and the prospect of producing new members of the tribe. Hence all the rules about women and sex.

It's naive to think that nowadays, people are somehow above and beyond existential urgency, beyond concerns for survival and power.
Nowadays, we are actually no more existentially safe, our survival is no more guaranteed than it was for the old tribes millennia ago. It's just that these are largely tabooed topics, we brand them as "barbaric".

For me, one of the most interesting parts of the Lewis article is not the argument itself, but the reminder of how 'hidden' it is. Arguments about whether God exists are two a penny, the misdoings of the Christian Church are well known, but what's less often accepted is the simple fact that we accept (even venerate in our political leaders), adherence to a religion which is fundamentally flawed. God does some abominable things in the bible - no doubt about that.
/.../
Yes they can be interpreted in some way as to make them less abominable, but that's not the point. The point is that in any other circumstance can you imagine uncovering this kind of writing in a book one of our political leaders had in their briefcase - there'd be outcry, scandal, the politician concerned would be sacked and disgraced, interpretation go hang. It simply would not be tolerated in any other guise than religion, but religion is actually admired as a characteristic in our leaders. Why? History. Christianity has been with us for decades, so we've learned to live with it, learned to wear it as a badge on our sleeve, not to actually follow its edicts, but just as a token that we're the morally serious. — Isaac

No, it's more than just history. Politics is, literally, about matters of life and death, it's about survival, about wellbeing, people's careers being at stake, people's lives being at stake. Politicians decide about things that affect us all, that are a matter of life and death for us all.

Religion addresses those same fundamental existential concerns.

It's just that in "civilized" society, people don't talk about these things openly, straightforwardly. The Nazis, on the other hand, did spell it out, and "civilized" society called it "barbaric".

I agree with the distinction, I think the point made in the article in the OP (and argued by Banno) is closer to judging Christians though. Namely because once their beliefs are interrogated, it is arguably a sensible decision to take their ethical intuitions and reasoning abilities with, at best, a large pinch of salt. Something is definitely found wanting in the believer due to their belief, here. — fdrake

Or the believer understands the urgency of existential issues in a way that a philosopher doesn't.