Positive Thoughts Only: The coming advantages of another faith-based presidency

[cantdog]

Pure, I'm afraid this particular group is after the right to be secure in their persons and homes from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a speedy and public trial, and so forth. Ashie wants to suspend habeas corpus for the duration of an indefinite "war." Bush has signed a finding that he can suspend the ban on torture at will, and Rummy has a special-access program, with Presidential approval, of kidnapping and removing suspects to countries where they torture people, in order to interrogate them with coercion. (Ask the Swedish government about Zery.)

The 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments are gone for American citizens, as well, cf. Lindh and many others, as well as the speedy trial by Hellfire missile of an American in a vehicle in Yemen.

Most of those rights are being suspended by executive activism. None of these people were elected either. The officials in elected office got there through judicial activism, and the rest were appointed.

Inalienable rights doesn't mean a thing anymore.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Doubt, as rg so persuasively puts the matter, is so useful! Doubt as in a recognition of fallibility, both others' and your own. Doubt is the beginning of common sense. Doubt is the doorstop that never lets the door close completely.

Doubt not only helps you begin to keep faith from being destructive, it helps to keep faith itself alive. It makes faith renewable. No one renews their faith without it.

cantdog

Damn, cant, I like it.

Ultimately and ideally, faith and doubt join together in humility.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

(Duplicate post)

But what the heck ...

Reason and faith are not mutually imcompatible. Faith essentially takes over where reason and fact leave off - at least, in some people's models. A belief in God is no less reasonable than a belief that there is no God. There's no actionable evidence on either side. Anyone voicing an opinion other than "I don't know" is in effect making an act of faith or hope. It just depends on what you hope for.

I liked Terry Pratchett's take on the old four-square reason to believe in God (i.e., logically you only get good results if you believe). He has a Quirmian philosopher explain this in an annoyingly clever voice. It's noted that when he dies, however, he wakes up surrounded by a bunch of gods with club and half-bricks saying, with grim expressions, "Let's show you what we think of Mr. Clever Dick in these parts.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

Shang,
That reminds me of the old anecdotal counter to Pascal's wager:

Maybe God has a special section of hell reserved for those who 'believed' based on Pascal's Wager.

I'm not sure what all this has to do with the thread topic, however. The point wasn't that the faith based approach defies or sets itself against reason, but that it's different from a 'reality based' approach,--- acting according to judicious reflection on discernable (observable) facts. It's far from clear that it's unreasonable to act according to 'potentials' of a situation' and/or according to one's belief in the likelihood that appropriate action is going to realize those potentials.

As far as reason goes, I don't see how it can generate any unconditional moral imperatives (Do this! Don't do that). If can only generate means/end assessments (conditional imperatives): e.g., if you want social harmony, it's best not to steal; if you want to be believed, it's best not to lie to people as a rule.

The harnessing of reason to faith, among other things, is going to be a mark of the faith based presidency: If you want to spread democracy, you have to raise people's hopes and diminish their fears. There are 'reasonable' (sensible) approaches to faith-based objectives.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The corollary to Pascals wager was provided by Pascal himself.

After some years, he was asked about his wager.

He said, there are several hundred religions and each promotes the idea that it is the "corect" religion. By the tennets of almost all of them, you will go to hell unless you believe their version.

He decided logically, your best bet is to not believe and hope God, if he indeed exists, is benevolent and will let you off.

-Colly

 

[sweetnpetite]

http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html


What Is Secular Humanism?

Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children...."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


There is more to this article at the link provided...

Secular Humanism seems like an ideal nest in which to rest...however...as much as Secular Humanists claim objectivity, they insist that there are no 'universal' or absolute values of life and that morality and ethics are a personal and subjective choice made by each individual.

The movement has somewhat splintered and disintegrated into sub categories and is basically non functional in terms of providin a 'replacement' god or set of moral values on can comprehend and teach.

Amicus...


(edited after re reading...if this is considered sounding off I will delete the post....it is intended only to be informational concerning secular humanism)

Personally, I appreciate the information.

Always learning,

Sweet.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Possible advantage:

Cheney ends up in charge and decides to be more politically supportive of his daughters 'lifestyle' and others like her.

Or:

Toto escapes and pulls back the curtain...

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,

That's a good argument, but, with all due respect, I doubt Pascal made it. Have you any evidence or citation?

One websource attributes this argument about multiple gods and hells to Voltaire and Diderot, who seem better possibilities: Pascal was for the latter part of his life a devout Christian.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/argument from inconsistent revelations

{{Added: A portion of the article is posted at the end; I had trouble copying it.}}

Am enjoying your other postings of late.

J.



Colly said,

The corollary to Pascals wager was provided by Pascal himself.

After some years, he was asked about his wager.

He said, there are several hundred religions and each promotes the idea that it is the "corect" religion. By the tennets of almost all of them, you will go to hell unless you believe their version.

He decided logically, your best bet is to not believe and hope God, if he indeed exists, is benevolent and will let you off.

=====
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/argument from inconsistent revelations

{{start, verbatim}}

The Argument from Inconsistent Revelations, also known as the Avoiding the Wrong Hell Problem, is an argument against the existence of God because many theologians and faithful adherents have produced conflicting and mutually exclusive revelations . Since a person not privy to revelation must either accept it or reject it based solely upon the authority of its proponent, and there is no way for a mere mortal to resolve these conflicting claims by investigation, it is prudent to reserve one's judgment. The argument appears, among other places, in Voltaire's Candide and Philosophical Dictionary.

This argument against God can be seen as the reverse of Pascal's Wager and frequently arises as an objection to it. The Wager invites one to accept the existence of God in the absence of proof as the best strategy because the alternate outcome for disbelief is eternal damnation in hell.

The Argument from Inconsistent Revelations explains that, given the content of the proposed revelations, acceptance of one entails rejection of another; Pascal's Wager gives no assurance that a person has in fact made the safest choice. In his Pensées philosophiques, Denis Diderot stated this objection to the Wager by observing that "An imam could reason the same way."

Christians believe to the point of knowledge that Jesus is the savior of the world; Jews believe just as strongly the he is not. Similarly Christians claim to know that Jesus is the son of God, while many Jews claim to know he isn't, and Muslims reject both claimed revelations in favour of their own. There are many examples of such contrasting views, indeed, opposing fundamental beliefs can even be found within the confines of each major religion. Acceptance of any one of these religions thus requires a rejection of the others, and when faced with these competing claims in the absence of a personal revelation, it is not possible to decide amongst them. Were a personal revelation to be granted to a nonbeliever, the same problem of confusion would develop in each new person the believer shared the revelation with.

Likewise, prayer may result in conflicting petitions addressed to the same God. On different sides of a battle or a football game, players and fans pray for victory to different Gods, or to the same God. God cannot simultaneously grant all of these prayers; therefore, for any one side to have claimed that God granted their prayer is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
{{end verbatim excerpt}}

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hi Colly,

That's a good argument, but, with all due respect, I doubt Pascal made it. Have you any evidence or citation?

One websource attributes this argument about multiple gods and hells to Voltaire and Diderot, who seem better possibilities: Pascal was for the latter part of his life a devout Christian.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/argument from inconsistent revelations

Am enjoying your other postings of late.

J.



Colly said,

The corollary to Pascals wager was provided by Pascal himself.

After some years, he was asked about his wager.

He said, there are several hundred religions and each promotes the idea that it is the "corect" religion. By the tennets of almost all of them, you will go to hell unless you believe their version.

He decided logically, your best bet is to not believe and hope God, if he indeed exists, is benevolent and will let you off.

Could very well be apocraphyl. I've always heard it as Pascal's wager. With the Corrollary being atributed to him later in his life. The corrollary does sound like Voltaire.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

amicus,
i hope you'll explain 'secular humanism' or defend your favorite variant of it, in terms of its 'objective truth,' in another thread.
you might explain how your variant differs from Ayn Rand's variant, which is also understood in terms of 'objective truth.'
i'd be happy--as perhaps would others like 'sweet'-- to engage you there.

tnx.
J.

 

[rgraham666]

The corollary to Pascals wager was provided by Pascal himself.

After some years, he was asked about his wager.

He said, there are several hundred religions and each promotes the idea that it is the "corect" religion. By the tennets of almost all of them, you will go to hell unless you believe their version.

He decided logically, your best bet is to not believe and hope God, if he indeed exists, is benevolent and will let you off.

-Colly

That's my preference. If there is a God, I'm pretty sure that She doesn't give two shrill hoots in Niffleheim what you believe.

She only cares about how you act.

 

[BlackShanglan]

This sort of discussion always reminds me of C. S. Lewis's "The Last Battle," in which his Christ figure tells someone who's been worshipping (he thinks) the evil god Tash that it doesn't really matter what he called God. He did good; one cannot do good in the service of evil, nor evil in the service of good. So, says Aslan, he is the one the young tarkaan has always worshipped, whatever he was calling him.

I'm somewhat embarassed to say that I've probably gotten as much of my religion from C. S. Lewis as from the Bible. But he's so humane and eminently persuasive.

Shanglan

 

[Guest]

I'm somewhat embarassed to say that I've probably gotten as much of my religion from C. S. Lewis as from the Bible. But he's so humane and eminently persuasive.

Nothing to be embarrassed about Shanglan. I often go back to Lewis.

Perdita

 

[Pure]

He was a good Anglican, with a talent for explaining (his vision of Christianity) to the common (literate) person. Leaving aside his literary output (tales), one can say he was talented in apologetics--e.g., selling us on the Devil, through the book "Screwtape Letters.

I'm guessing, but I believe he perfectly illustrates my point about the common deficiency of 'social conscience' in many Christians. Maybe I'm ignorant, but I don't know of any 'cause' of common or poor or disadvantaged persons that he championed, though he had a very privileged position in a university. (That said, I'm sure he donated to the 'collection plate' at church, and approved of their giving 'alms'(assistance) to the poor.)

 

[BlackShanglan]

Pure -

I can't say much about specific causes. However, I can contribute these snippets:

1) On charitable giving: Lewis says that if we live the same lifestyle as other people who make the same money, then we are not giving enough. It's the "give until you feel it" theory.

2) On social causes, Lewis specifically recommends "mere" Christianity. That is, one should be a Christian, not a "Christian Socialist" or "Christian Vegetarian" or "Christian Environmentalist." I believe his point is that we endanger our religion itself when we allow ourselves to personally dictate other missions it must also achieve. We can certainly work on those missions, and if they incorporate Christian virtues of generosity, love, and humility (and I love him for being big on humility), that is all well. We should not, however, dilute or misdirect our religion by confusing it with other causes. They are different things.

I like this because, while it's always tempting to do this in favor of one's own preferred cause, I believe that it is truly dangerous and ill-advised to conflate religion with whatever else one personally believes is important. It's always tempting to believe that one knows God's mind, but that sort of thing often leads to ugly results.

Shanglan

 

[Guest]

Excellent response, Shanglan.

as ever, Perdita

 

[Pure]

Hi! How are ya?

Shanglan said in part,

2) On social causes, Lewis specifically recommends "mere" Christianity. That is, one should be a Christian, not a "Christian Socialist" or "Christian Vegetarian" or "Christian Environmentalist." I believe his point is that we endanger our religion itself when we allow ourselves to personally dictate other missions it must also achieve. We can certainly work on those missions, and if they incorporate Christian virtues of generosity, love, and humility (and I love him for being big on humility), that is all well. We should not, however, dilute or misdirect our religion by confusing it with other causes. They are different things.

I like this because, while it's always tempting to do this in favor of one's own preferred cause, I believe that it is truly dangerous and ill-advised to conflate religion with whatever else one personally believes is important[...]

I couldn't have put it better myself as to the mainstream Christian (mostly) Protestant position-- though certainly NOT one endorsed by all protestants, e.g., the Puritans of New England.

I submit that Mr. Maguire would be accused by many Christians of doing just what you describe. To use your phrasing, he "personally believes" social justice and peace to be "important".

He precisely "conflates" his religion with those causes, since he says or implies that his (version of) RC'ism, demands that one be concerned and act on those issues.

To use your words:
I believe his [Lewis's] point is that we endanger our religion itself when we allow ourselves to personally dictate other missions it must also achieve.

Sister Helen Prejean, the nun who has crusaded for the abolition of capital punishment is exactly allowing her religion---in an admirable way, IMO-- to dictate "other missions." After all, the Bible, the church fathers, and all the popes before this century had no problem with capital punishment. IOW "mere Christianity" does NOT contain opposition to capital punishment.

To take another case I know directly, the Quakers believe that Christianity involves NOT taking up arms, and avoiding joining directly in war efforts. This again is counter to the mainstream, from the Bible onwards. They precisely could be accused of 'conflating' Christianity with their version of pacifism. Again, all these processes [dictate other missions; conflate] you and Lewis condemn, I approve.

Incidentally, Perdita, if she agrees with the Jesuits and social activists in the RC church, should (in terms of consistency) be in general agreement with the above points, NOT in general agreement with Lewis.

I am glad to have such an articulate advocate as yourself defending Christian's keeping 'arms length' relationships with secular causes.

Best regards,

J.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Excellent response, Shanglan.

as ever, Perdita

Charmed as always, Perdita. We seem to end up interested in many of the same threads. It's always a pleasure to read your posts.

I couldn't have put it better myself as to the mainstream Christian (mostly) Protestant position-- though certainly NOT one endorsed by all protestants, e.g., the Puritans of New England.

I submit that Mr. Maguire would be accused by many Christians of doing just what you describe. To use your phrasing, he "personally believes" social justice and peace to be "important".

He precisely "conflates" his religion with those causes, since he says or implies that his (version of) RC'ism, demands that one be concerned and act on those issues.

I'm not precisely sure who Mr. Maguire is, possibly due to my appallingly poor memory for names. However, I do wish to point this out: a mission for peace, at least, is specifically a Christian mission. That is, it's something Christians are told to strive for. One may believe that there are better or worse ways to achieve it, but it's a Christian mission. I think that some fine judgement and care is called for when distiniguishing between one's own personal goals and the goals laid out in Christian thought, especially when different religious thinkers have different ideas about the tenets of Christian belief. To his eternal credit, Lewis encourages precisely this sort of thought, and I think incorporates nicely into the key burden of humility the need to frequently and carefully examine the roots of one's actions and impulses. His comments in Screwtape are excellent in their humorous but trenchant insight in the ways in which we convince ourselves that our own whims or desires are dictates from above.

To use your words:
I believe his point is that we endanger our religion itself when we allow ourselves to personally dictate other missions it must also achieve.

Sister Helen Prejean, the nun who has crusaded for the abolition of capital punishment is exactly allowing her religion---in an admirable way, IMO-- to dictate "other missions." After all, the Bible, the church fathers, and all the popes before this century had no problem with capital punishment. IOW "mere Christianity" does NOT contain opposition to capital punishment.

While taking your comments in the spirit intended, I must point out that you've reversed the statement, and that this substantially changes its message. The statement was that one should not allow one's own interests to dictate what missions religion should fulfill - not that one should not allow one's religion to dictate one's personal missions. I feel that there is a very substantial difference here.

What I would guess - a guess only - Lewis might say on the topic of someone like Prejean, or others working in nebulous areas like, for example, womens' rights or environmental causes, which are not addressed in the Bible or which are addressed in ambiguous ways, is that one can certainly pursue such causes, and may even believe, according to various interpretations of Scripture, that the cause might be Christian. However, it would probably behoove one to maintain a sense of humility and an awareness of that uncertainty when pursuing that mission. While it's generally best to avoid "it's every Christian's mission to do XYZ" unless quite, quite sure, I would guess that it's rather more forgivable to say, "My understanding of the Bible leads me to believe that this is wrong." It's not sinful to take a stance on a personal belief; it's only necessary to examine carefully how that intersects with religion.

To take another case I know directly, the Quakers believe that Christianity involves NOT taking up arms, and avoiding joining directly in war efforts. This again is counter to the mainstream, from the Bible onwards. They precisely could be accused of 'conflating' Christianity with their version of pacifism. Again, all these processes [dictate other missions; conflate] you and Lewis condemn, I approve.

Again, this is a case where we are talking less about conflating one's personal social goals with religion and more about what one believes Christianity requires. If one believes that Christianity is inherently pacifistic, then it's part of Christian dogma, not personal preference. "Mainstream" has little to do with it; I think Lewis recognizes that variability of interpretation is a key issue in Biblical interpretation, and that this will inevitably lead to differing beliefs of what exactly is required.

I would also point out that Lewis is not saying that Christianity never requires action or sacrifice; quite the opposite. He's merely saying that it is dangerous both to society and to religion when people attempt to rope their pet causes into religious dogma. It's a process that requires careful thought and examination, and an understanding of the difference between humanist and divine priorities. It's fine to have the former; one simply should not repackage them as the latter. Thus, while I may personally have grave doubts about free market capitalism's compatibility with Christian charity, and I may campaign all I like to find a better way of organizing an economy, it would not be appropriate for me to announce that no one can believe in capitalism and be a Christian unless I could find some really substantial Biblical support for that - support as clear as, for example, that saying that it's bad to kill or committ adultery.

Incidentally, Perdita, if she agrees with the Jesuits and social activists in the RC church, should (in terms of consistency) be in general agreement with the above points, NOT in general agreement with Lewis.

I think that placing those activists and Lewis in contradiction is inaccurate, but this is probably due to my own poor transmission of his excellent ideas. I recommend "Mere Christianity" if you want it straight from Lewis's pen and not from the horse's mouth.

I am glad to have such an articulate advocate as yourself defending Christian's keeping 'arms length' relationships with secular causes.

I am pleased with your kind regard, as I too like nothing so much as an articulate opponent. However, I may not be quite so much an opponent as you envision. I don't believe, and I don't think that Lewis believes, that one cannot be a Christian and an activist; it's only that one must scrutiinize the source of the impulse, and not mistake one's personal preferences for religious dogma.

Shanglan

 

[Guest]

Incidentally, Perdita, if she agrees with the Jesuits and social activists in the RC church, should (in terms of consistency) be in general agreement with the above points, NOT in general agreement with Lewis.

I learned of Lewis from the Jesuits, and other activist RCs. No one reads Lewis, or others of his Christian ilk as dogma or tenets. Like any pastoral mind, Lewis merely helps enhance one's own thinking and/or faith. He was of a certain class and society, one should not 'judge' him, or his works, as one might Dorothy Day or the Berrigan brothers.

Perdita

 

[cantdog]

Dorothy Day, at the beginning of her extraordinary career, was appalled to discover that the churches in her reach did not, actually, have any organized "social work." She forthwith began some, but the fact remains.

Booth and the Salvation Army operated in a churchless void, mostly, as well.

Sadly, stone buildings take a lot of upkeep and gilt requires to be renewed from time to time.

Cheers

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Its double dutch in here and I'm just looking for a clear spot to jump in.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Dorothy Day, at the beginning of her extraordinary career, was appalled to discover that the churches in her reach did not, actually, have any organized "social work." She forthwith began some, but the fact remains.

I can't imagine what churches were "in her reach," but clearly not my own. Possibly her specific causes were not covered, but a blanket "no social work of any sort?" This seems quite unlikely to me.

Shanglan

 

[Guest]

Dorothy Day, at the beginning of her extraordinary career, was appalled to discover that the churches in her reach did not, actually, have any organized "social work." She forthwith began some, but the fact remains.

Really, Cant. After the monastics and Jesuits, most RCC religious orders were founded to do social work/justice. I received an excellent primary education from the Sisters of Charity (in one of Detroit's 'lesser' neighborhoods).

Perdita

 

[cantdog]

I can't imagine what churches were "in her reach," but clearly not my own. Possibly her specific causes were not covered, but a blanket "no social work of any sort?" This seems quite unlikely to me.

Shanglan

I stand corrected, Shanglan. She fed the destitute. No one was feeding the destitute out of a church. It was a while back, but they don't do that very much even now. Most churches in my town "support the Area Shelter" and "support the Salvation Army." Liberals.

As Phil Ochs remarked--

I'll give all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
Love me, love me, love me
I'm a liberal

 

[BlackShanglan]

I stand corrected, Shanglan. She fed the destitute. No one was feeding the destitute out of a church. It was a while back, but they don't do that very much even now.

Sorry. Can't think she was looking very hard. My church does three or four specific-goal food and money drives each year and has ongoing charity food outreaches in dozens of countries. This is true now and has been for quite a long time - as in, I can give you specific programs at least as far back as the early 1800's. Mine's one of the "big" religions, so it's not like it's some wee tiny little sect no one could have found. Were people standing at the church doors handing out loaves of bread? No. That's not very helpful. It's a lot more useful to set up kitchens or support-work programs where impoverished people actually live.

Having worked in the non-profit sector myself, I would argue that the perception that "no one is doing anything" is a perception that is not always rooted in reality. Sometimes it is, but sometimes the speaker just hasn't done much research.

I would also argue that just giving money is often a great thing. While it's nice to have people who give time and hands-on work as well as money, the main thing a lot of organizations need is actually money - especially those involved in resource-intensive tasks like delivering food to the hungry. It makes little sense for four or five different groups to each have to pay administrative, logistical, planning, and advertising costs when one group can set up an effective system for doing that and the others can channel their money to them. In fact, I would argue that it's considerably more in keeping with the Christian goals of charity to support people who are getting the job done than to insist on doing it oneself simply for the joy of sticking that religion's name on it.

Shanglan