Allotetraploid

Gudlösa utgjutelser över guds barn och barnbarn

August 20th, 2007

The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason

Mr. Godwin’s second post was actually an improvement over his first. He now tries to address the real matter at hand in some of the paragraphs, and it its chiefly those I’ll deal with. Some of his post deals with completely irrelevant things though, such as the usefulness of the Christian doctrine and calling Hitler hostile to Christianity. Godwin thinks Christendom useful since it guarantees the objectivity of his own political agenda. As it happens Hitler also was a man of faith and strong moral convictions, as he said in one of his speeches

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.

A book such as The Holy Reich could enlighten Mr. Godwin on the subject matter.

Hitler, as Godwin, and Plato, sees usefulness in the religious doctrines. I see no such thing, if by usefulness we mean useful for good. The sheer barbarism of the Christian doctrines, the horror promulgated by its scriptures and the madness of its adherents is indeed one long dark chapter in human history. It is this barbarism that so has shocked decent men of all ages, such as the founding fathers of the republic. And I do believe that it was that that lead the senate to declare that the republic is in no way a Christian nation as they did in the Tripoli agreement of 1797. Just to quote a few

”The Christian God can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, evil and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed, beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. The are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.” – Thomas Jefferson

”During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”- James Madison

“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.!”- Thomas Paine

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”- Benjamin Franklin

Mr. Godwin asks himself how I can loath his dogma since I’m a nihilist. Well the truth of the matter is I’m not. Atheism doesn’t deny values only that their validity is based on divine will (Euthyphro). I need no gods to act morally, particularly not the immoral god of Christianity. Even the one some call Christ knew this when he said that even those who are evil understand to care for their children, and Paul wrote about it, stating that the heathens have their conscience to guide them to do good. I think that our capacity to feel with other living beings, our sympathy, guides our sense of what is right and wrong as long as it’s not clouded by religious tribalism and fanaticism. People too heavenly minded seems utterly incapable of doing any earthly good as Tomás de Torquemada aptly show. Or as Thomas Paine once wrote “Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man”.

My morality also have an intellectual side and that is to never affirm things that my intellect tells me is plain wrong. It’s a matter of being true to oneself and not make a mockery of mans mental faculties. So when Mr. Godwin denies he has read Tillich, and attribute the similarity of their thought to a factual and perceivable spiritual reality that yields the consistency of experience that such a hypothesis demand, it makes me wonder if Godwin ever have heard the name of William James. If such a consistency were at hand, it would be a mystery beyond compare that it has eluded man from the dawn of time to the time Christians entered the scene of history and began to dress it up in their pious terminology. And once that was done the history of the Christian Church proved to be one of extreme sectarianism and split over how to articulate and understand that experience. It makes one wonder why there presently are over nine thousand different Christian denominations listed in the world Christian database and the fact that even the apostles had to deal with difference of opinion in their own midst (Paul vs. Peter). And a final remark on the connection between Godwin and Tillich. Does it not defy reason to appeal to an objective spiritual reality, instead of indirect influence through other authors, when you are dealing with one of the most influential theologians of the past century? In no sphere of human understanding and knowledge do people see so differently when they claim to see the same thing; An, Enki, Enlil, Inanna, Nammu, Nanna, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Sin, Tiamat,Utu, Jahwe and so forth (you can find over 3000 others here). It makes me think of prince Hamlet and Polonius when discussing the appearances of a cloud.

HAMLET
Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel?

LORD POLONIUS
By the mass, and ’tis like a camel, indeed.

HAMLET
Methinks it is like a weasel.

LORD POLONIUS
It is backed like a weasel.

HAMLET
Or like a whale?

LORD POLONIUS
Very like a whale.

There is simply nothing there more than mythological projections on the vapors of a human mind. Another and even more stunning fact is that most people only report that they have seen what their parents and pastors told them to see (96-97% according to Hunsberger). I’m not denying the existence of mystical experiences; they can easily be chemically or electrically induced. What I’m denying, on both empirical and logical grounds, is that Christianity (or any other by me known religion) tells us anything profound about them.

Mr. Godwin then immerses himself in the logos theology of the ancient world. Better articulated earlier in history by the stoics than the fool who wrote the gospel of John, but still it is a refuge for faith that Darwin and modern neuroscience utterly obliterates and reconstructs, not from top to bottom but from bottom to top. If Mr. Godwin has accepted the overwhelming evidence for evolution, as he seems to have, he would be better off had he not returned to the bosom of Paley. The ability of the human mind (as well as the minds of other species) to make sense of the world that surrounds it, is a result of differential survival of those neural constructs that made the best models of the surrounding world. It doesn’t take a good fancy thing (god) to produce a less fancy thing (mind). By the simplest rules of an algorithmic process (such as evolution) great complexity and diversity can arise. The cells of a rat brain can learn to navigate an air plane by mechanisms of positive feedback, so why should not the only known physiological improvement device (evolution) manage to model better simulation machines (human brains)? To even begin a revival attempt of logos you have to falsify the validity of natural selection in the domain of neurology and then make a case for a halt to further investigation of other causes other than those promulgated by your private revelations.

Existence as a category neither imply nor demands any transcendental entity, but if such were to exist it would by necessity itself be subjects to the laws of existence. But if that be denied we must conclude that it does not exist and I would be fully content with such a proposition. To exist is simply to have a property, “to be” is to be something and deny that something and the “to be” will transform itself into a “not to be”. The inner properties (AORATA AUTOU Romans 1:20) ascribed to the Christian god is contradictory since three cannot be one, and an all good and all powerful being contradicts the collective human experience on a daily basis. The workings ascribed to him (TA POIE^MA Romans 1:20) defies the laws of nature as well as the stellar geography (TAXIS KOSMOU). The whole of the Christian dogma is a violation of human experience and a denial of reason.

christianity

Mr. Godwin made an opening remark on the fact that Gödel’s theorem proves that a logical system cannot be self contained and complete at the same time. This leaves me with no problems since I gladly accepts that my senses, to the best of their ability, gives me accurate data of an external world that exists, and furthermore I gladly accepts the axiomatic nature of the basic tenets of logic, since they are the precondition for every subsequent thought, the alternative would be to cease to think. The workings of an apologist are to undermine man’s confidence in this his natural disposition to believe in what he must believe in order to live. And replace the fabric of reality with a belief in fiction and thus bring about a new closure of the western mind.

Mr. Godwin seemed agitated over the fact that I have made a religion of my irreligion. I can’t see why I should not? I live in the global church without Christ, where the blind don’t see and the lame don’t walk and under the middle of a service some pretentious turd in the congregation stands up and claims to know the will of the almighty, that I should doubt my senses and discard of reason. What other can I do than stand up in my pew and shout ”ANATHEMA EI!”?

This conclude my part in the drama. The stage is all yours Mr. Godwin, lest god loose.

Andra bloggar om: Religion, kristendom, christianity, filosofi, philosophy, one cosmos, Godwin, apologetik, apologetics, logik, logic, intressant

28 Responses to “The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason”

Subscribes to this topic Comment RSS or TrackBack URL

Hitler, now there’s a man whose public pronouncements can be taken as the gospel truth! Propaganda is a concept I’m sure never entered his mind.

In addition to the words you quote, here are some others recorded from private moments and chronicled in the book, Hitler’s Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953.)

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941

“National Socialism and religion cannot exist together….
“The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity….
“Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.” (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday

“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.” (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday

“The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity….
“Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse….
“…the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little….
“Christianity the liar….
“We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.” (p 49-52)

It goes on and on.

Alloyedtetraplop said in August 21st, 2007 at 2:00 am

Well now, the table talks of Borman are not such a reliable source, as one can see here, and it is used with great caution by historians and biographers. That Hitler held no Christian beliefs is something that runs contrary to every act he did and every word we know from his own hand or mouth. After all, his hatred to the Jews was only a continuation of the practices of the Church. The pope at least believed in him since he ordered his German bishops to pray for the Führer and congratulated him on every birthday. A practice that did not stop until after the suicide in the Berlin bunker.
But even if Hitler was lying did he not just follow the practice of Saint Paul who in first Corinthians (9:20) boasted about his successes in the art of deception. A practice praised by the saint Chrysostom(354-407) who says (De sacredotio I 8-9) that lies and deceit are allowed whenever it favors the cause of the church. Statements highly praised by Isidor of Pelusium (360-435) and institutionalized by the Jesuits. Oh, Christians what a wretched lot they are!

Allotetraploid said in August 21st, 2007 at 2:43 am

I guess when you’ve got no depth, shallow is as deep as it goes. Attempting to use the Tripolli agreement is pretty much a toe wetter. Which silly book did you latch onto that example from? The passage you refer to was Barlow’s translation of Article 11 from the Arabic, which declared to the religion of peace’s sensibilities that the USA was not a Christian nation, in the way that the Pasha’s was an islamic nation, which was true. The USA was a nation populated predominatly with Christians, but was not a gov’t based on christianity. Not that you are likely to have much interest in a more complete picture, but this site gives a good summation of the full context, of which that initial treaty was but the first in a series, and the only one with such islambo flattery within it.

You’re quotes from the Founders (with the possible exception of Thomas Paines) are equally out of context. There’s a cottage industry of people writing books with reams of quotes from the same people to support the religious and anti-religious points of view. Without the full context, neither has any meaning or value in support of either argument. Similarly, people such as yourself like to take quotes from Voltaire to support their atheistic points of view, apparently unaware that if Voltaire had but one noose to use and had to choose between putting it around the neck of a monk or an atheist, he would have unhesitatingly cinched it about the atheists and kicked over the stool.

I’m personally not a Christian (or at least most Christians wouldn’t regard me as one), and consider myself religious in as much a way that the Founders (including Paine) would have recognized – and I suspect Voltaire would have as well. There is much you discard when you come at religion at the level of literalists and atheists, similarly if you read Hamlet in the same way, you probably come away with a story of a depressed procrastinator afraid of confronting his step dad.

Probably you are rather impressed with the uniqueness of Modern Man, and fail to consider that Man himself has changed little in several thousand years. What has changed in that time, is technology and educational methods. Biblical stories were conveyed and passed down by the wisest of their communities as a compact, memorable way of imparting wisdom to the community. In the case of the Jewish community, it was also accompanied by discussion, much discussion, meaning that there was much meaning within them to be discussed.

Do you know many truly wise people who believe literaly that snakes spoke? They didn’t either, though they thoroughly understood and believed all that that conveyed. They passed on the stories because there was meaning within them, and through that deeper meaning, they were able to come closer to that deeper meaning within them all, God. If you ever get yourself to look beyond the ‘talking snake’ level of regard for religion, you will find a great deal of depth awaiting you. Careful though, it’ll mean getting more than your toes wet.

Blogodidact said in August 21st, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Your quotes from Hitler, Jefferson, Madison, Paine and Franklin are intended to convey the idea that the evil Hitler embraced Christianity and that the good men, a portion of the founders of the greatest government and nation on earth, were opposed to Christianity and found it pernicious. This is disingenuous in the extreme.

I will add to Blogodidact’s thoughts with examples pulled from the aforementioned cottage industry.

To brand all Christianity with the mark of Hitler or Torquemada is equivalent to branding all atheism with Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

Jefferson said many things that are interpreted in many ways. It is incontrovertible that he also took the time to put together a volume entitled, “The LIFE AND MORALS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH”.

Was Jefferson a Christian in the common sense? No, but he was obviously impressed with the teachings of Jesus.
James Madison in 1785:
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. (This very old statement is disputed, but there is no more evidence of its untruth as there is of its truth.)
In 1788, Madison stated:
The belief in God all powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it.

As to Thomas Paine, certainly not a Christian; not an atheist as well:

Thomas Paine on “The Study of God”
Delivered in Paris on January 16, 1797, in a
Discourse to the Society of Theophilanthropists
It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.
When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue or a highly finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only, and thereby separated the study of them from the Being who is the author of them. . . .
The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of the creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence. They labor with studied ingenuity to ascribe everything they behold to innate properties of matter; and jump over all the rest, by saying that matter is eternal.

In his “Farewell Address,” Washington reminded the nation:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. . . . The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.
Washington – indisputably a constitutional expert – declared that religion and morality were inseparable from government, and that no true patriot, whether politician or clergyman, would attempt to weaken the relationship between government and the influence of religion and morality.
Or why not cite the actions of the entire body of Founding Fathers? For example, in 1800, when Washington, D. C., became the national capital and the President moved into the White House and Congress into the Capitol, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building for Christian worship services. In fact, Christian worship services on Sunday were also started at the Treasury Building and at the War Office.
John Quincy Adams, a U. S. Senator, made frequent references to these services. Typical of his almost weekly entries are these:
[R]eligious service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury. October 23, 1803.
Attended public service at the Capitol, where Mr. Ratoon, an Episcopalian clergyman from Baltimore, preached a sermon. October 30, 1803.
The Rev. Mannasseh Cutler, a U. S. Congressman (as well as a chaplain in the Revolution and a physician and scientist) similarly recorded in 1804:
December 23, Sunday. Attended worship at the Treasury. Mr. [James] Laurie [pastor of the Presbyterian Church] alone [preached]. Sacrament [communion]. Full assembly. Three tables; service very solemn; nearly four hours. Cold day.
By1867, the church in the Capitol had become the largest church in Washington, and the largest Protestant church in America.
Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 24 had the equivalent of a seminary or bible school degree – not only Christians, but clergy.

Alloyedtetraplop said in August 21st, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Blogodidact!
I’m afraid references to apologetic pages on the web won’t impress me much. I learnt about the Tripoli agreement 9 years ago when I wrote an essay on the history of the American constitution. My quotes from the founding fathers are also from that article except that by Franklin, which if my memory not fails me, I first heard in Millers tv-series “A brief history of disbelief”. The article 11 in the agreement can well be quoted in full “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” If article 11 is a forgery, as the apologist claim or not, I don’t know. But through the years I’ve learned that truth rarely passes the lips of a Christian apologist, so I’ll take the statements with a grain of salt.
As for Voltaire I don’t like him, he built a church and that I consider a grave sin. It is true that he made a death bed confession, at least I know of no contrary statements, to the catholic faith and that the encyclopedists accused him of being a Christian. But if you are a skeptic in regard of the Tripoli agreement I think you should take another look at the Christianity of Voltaire as well, especially his later writings.
Neither can I see that I have misquotes the fathers. Jefferson is writhing to his nephew, Peter Carr, and compares the god of the Christian religion to a demon of old. Madison is quoted directly from his petition “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” addressed to the Commonwealth of Virginia, where he opposed the establishment of a tenure given to teachers of the Christian religion, i.e. priests. And Franklin is, I’ve looked it up, quoted from “Poor Richard”, which contains a collection of aphorisms. And finally we have Pain who is quoted from his book “The Age of Reason”, and his opposition to Christianity cannot be doubted. All of them where fiercely opposed to ecclesiastic influence in the matters of state, all of them disdained the legacy of the Christian church and some of them were even opposed to organized religion as such. They were all deists though, if that is what you’re trying to say.
On historical and anthropological grounds I do doubt that any of the Old Testament narrators believed in anything than the literal truth of their account. Symbolic and allegorical interpretation of holy writ is an entirely Greek device imported or rather exported by Alexander through his military expeditions. Many pious Jews, such as the Essenes, loathed this practice but some accepted it, prominently Philo. He as well as followers of the Gnostic tradition of cause found the literal orthodoxy laughable or as Marcion, outright contemptible. Marcion I like by the way since he had the guts to cut the Old Testament out of the canon.
The wild esoteric and Gnostic writings of contemporary authors such as C G Jung or the ancient writers of the Nag Hamadi library is just one big mess of parallelomainia. Christ born when the stellar constellation turned in the sign of Pisces, his anagram being the Greek word for fish or Mary being derived from the proto Indo-European root for mother, present in the name of almost every godmother in the ancient world. Blablabla… Serendipity or verticality? Neither! Just the horizontal transmission of ideas and forced moves by human design.

Allotetraploid said in August 21st, 2007 at 11:34 pm

Forgery? No, it’s not a forgery, but if you read history – which is where I first came across it (some time ago, researching how Jefferson’s cutting back on Adams naval plans, left him in trouble leading into our first conflict with islamic countries)- sorry, most history and textbooks won’t fit in this submit box – knowing what I was looking for, I did a quick search for something that did a reasonable job of including the full context.

At that point in the conflict, largely because of the thin state of our naval capacity, we weren’t in a strong position to make demands. We were able to bring them to the table, and negotiated an agreement both sides would go for. Read the article as you posted it:

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” ”

What is in any way out of line with that statement? As per the establishment clause, the USA will not make any leglislation to establish a religion, and completely unsurprisingly, we are not “in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”, it makes no mention of the makeup of the nation at that time, only that the GOV’T is not established upon or founded on a religion, Christian or any other.

Astounding stuff there, congratulations on the scoop. My comment is that it was about the weakest route you could possibly take to try to make your point. There’s plenty of in context material in the Federalist and anti-Federalist paters that could help you at least make a decent point.

Personally, I wouldn’t bother reading anything that purported to profess a pro or anti religous slant on history, by it’s very nature, it has a limiting perspective that screams bias, not history. I’d rather read History, and come to my own conclusions.

Blogodidact said in August 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 am

My point about the Founders quotes, were that they were out of context, made to advance a particular point (as what you noted about Madison above), not as overall assessments of their personal beliefs (again, with the exception of Paine, who was Deist). Most of the founders were very wary of established religion, but few were out and out anti-religion as was Ethan Allen, or even to the level that Paine was.

People take from religion, or even literature for that matter, what they are able and interested in grasping. There are many tales in the Jewish studies which are obviously tales to make a point, not any kind of direct revelation, one that comes to mind is of a Rabbi arguing against the council, and God, about a particular interpretation of the Torah. The council is against him, and through God’s actions (slamming doors, falling roofs, sudden flames) against him, but his argument prevails, and even God is pleased that he argued his point. I suspect that came after the time of Alexandria… still, anachronistically judging their times by ours, is a mistake, whether that is trying the Jung/Campbell method or what have you.

Frankly, without the Greek influence, I likely never would have made it past the talking snake aspect, but when you do venture past that, there is much more going on in the stories, and I don’t mean the simple newagey stuff.

Blogodidact said in August 22nd, 2007 at 4:03 am

“As for Voltaire I don’t like him, he built a church and that I consider a grave sin. It is true that he made a death bed confession”

Well, there you go. Personally, I don’t buy the deathbed confession, look at the source.

Blogodidact said in August 22nd, 2007 at 4:10 am

“…allegorical interpretation of holy writ is an entirely Greek device imported or rather exported by Alexander through his military expeditions.”

I assume you don’t mean by Alexander himself, but as a result of the Hellenization the mid-east which followed his conquests. And… ahem… thank God for it.

Blogodidact said in August 22nd, 2007 at 4:18 am

Yes forgery! The page you referred to claim that article 11 is bogus.
Religious makeup? I was not trying to make a point about the demography of confessions at that time. To purport anything else than that the absolute majority of the population (indians not accounted for) was in some way or another “Christian” would be ludicrous to the point of absurdity. My point was a different one, as I said “It is this barbarism that so has shocked decent men of all ages, such as the founding fathers of the republic. And I do believe that it was that that lead the senate to declare that the republic is in no way a Christian nation as they did in the Tripoli agreement”. The constitution don’t even mentions god other than in the negative “no establishment of religion” and the declaration of independence only refers to him indirectly as the giver of human rights, i.e. god, not the king, is the one who gives man his freedom. The Tripoli agreement confirms the secular nature of the federation and that was my sole point. The founder knew, some by fist hand experience, what happens when you let religion dictate the affairs of state. They knew of the Christian barbarism in Europe, and they knew about the religious persecutions in America, between different Christian groups. Hitler, who I referred to in this context, was completely alien to the idea of a separation between state and church, ideology and kerygma. And so barbarism followed. It was Godwin’s talk about natural hierarchies, religious criteria for what is to be regarded as art (a trait he shares with the Islamic beast), and a call for, for what I interpret as, a spiritual vendetta (I prefer a secular one) against Muslims, that provoked me to bring up the spirit of the founding fathers.

Allotetraploid said in August 22nd, 2007 at 4:38 am

Alexander was a man of great industry but he was not capable to bring light to every lost soul in Canaan by himself, so of cause I mean the ensuing cultural transformation of the Mediterranean. Though, I’m more inclined to lift my hat for Alexander than Zeus.

Allotetraploid said in August 22nd, 2007 at 4:43 am

“Yes forgery! The page you referred to claim that article 11 is bogus.”

ehh… I think you’re reading into it what you’re looking for. Granted, I pulled the site out of a quick morning scan, but was looking for a site that didn’t outright promote one view or another, and although he does say at one point that it’s possible the the article didn’t belong in the treaty, he doesn’t actually call it a forgery, and spends a fair amount of space pro and con. The reason I grabbed that link was because he didn’t start and end with that part of that treaty, but covered the whole process, and for noting this:

“The point to be made here is that America was in no position, at this time in the 1790s, to worry about the minutiae of the Treaty. A treaty had to be negotiated, for as the site also notes, “The Barbary states considered themselves at war with any country that did not have a peace agreement with them.”

and then the last line:
“Our conclusion: Article 11 is a skeptical dud that proves nothing about the founding principles of this nation and says nothing about to what extent Christian influence has shaped us or our government.”

Which as I noted above, is true. America was founded as a nation of laws, not of men – or their religion. However, to try to claim that the Founders didn’t believe that the nation depended upon a virtous citizenry, and that that depended upon a religious (to their eyes) citizenry, is to bend history into pretzels.

The bulk of the Founders could be found somewhat above, below and on a par with Jeffersons statement:
“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” which is more along my understanding. But rather than take just your quote or mine, read the entire letter. Jefferson explicitly tells young Carr to examine the evidence and claims for and against belief, such as “Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, & that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a God, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. In fine, I repeat, you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything, because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision.”

The Founders, as well as Voltaire, were fresh from their, their parents, or grandparents memories of the worst of organized religion (many of whose clergy were mere power lusters, without a religious bone in their bodies… but also literalists who followed ‘logical’ methods for determining witches – and burning them) riding roughshod over all men. They believed in Reason and the Enlightenment, but few were foolish enough to fully buy into the french radicals idea of what amounts to rationalist little ‘r’ reason.

Which leads me to the question I left you at One Cosmos – sorry can’t read Sweedish to get the answer myself, do you rank yourself as a determinst?

Blogodidact said in August 22nd, 2007 at 5:38 am

If your view of the founders is that they were not men of one book, but men of many books, then I will agree fully. What I decent from, is the viewpoint taken by not so few Americans, that America is a Christian nation. In no way can that be considered as anything else than outright treason against the spirit of the fathers.
As for Jefferson, Voltaire and the spirit of the enlightenment, I share their conviction that free enquiry, education and a keen mind guided by reason is necessary, both for the spiritual growth of the individual and the civilized coexistence among men.
My philosophy of life, if that is what you are asking for, is not an objectivist one. I tried to read Mrs. Rand once, here “philosophical essays”, I think it was. I stopped in the middle of the book, with a sensation similar to that of officer Barbrady in south park “Yes at first I was happy to be learning how to read, it seemed exciting and magical. But then I read this. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage and because of this piece of shit, I’m never reading again!” I on my part, didn’t give up on reading all together though, I just decided to never read Rand again.
In my first post to Mr. Godwin I mentioned that there are different kinds of statements and events who’s truths fall in different categories. Real contradictions can only arise within the same domain of truth. Take the question of determinism as an example. It is perfectly true that the laws of causation allows for no freedom of will in an absolute sense. Then on the other hand, consider what it would really mean to have an uncaused will. It would mean that your will was random. This necessity of causation and thus determinism is acknowledge also by Paul (Romans 9:19) and elaborated by Augustine. Many other theologians, prominently Calvin and Luther, have made the same observation. But there is a crux in this line of logical reasoning when one drags it into the domain of human experience, i.e. what it is to be human.
In no way do I feel myself bound or caused by external factors. Rather I feel that I’m free to do as I please. Now, one could argue that this feeling of freedom arrived from the fact that I choose the only path that I can will to choose, since my will is the result of causation. That would be perfectly true in an objective sense, but not in a human one. It’s hard to make any sense of determinism within the framework of subjective experience and human interaction. I provide you with cues (causes) when we are discussing this matters, and one of my hopes is that they will cause you (or any other reader) to think differently in metaphysical matters. Had our prehistory (causes) been different the roles might have been reversed. Does this render all matters indifferent? I think not.
The fault with Rand and any other absolutistic philosophy is that they deny what it is to be human. A philosophy that can’t accommodate for the experience of being human, is a dehumanizing one. I think that any philosophy of life worthy of that name, must make room both for the relentless truth of the material world and the deeply subjective (spiritual if you will) reality in which human lives. A conflict will only arise when one try to make hierarchies of reality or impose one domain upon the other. The material world of causation does not obliterate concepts like moral responsibility or meaningfulness of action. They are both causes who causes man to act morally and thus they do what we all wish them to do. Had we wished differently, we had not been human. In the other end of the spectrum there lurks the danger of imposing humanness on nature. Human cannot tear down the sheer fabric of reality with his longings and impose upon it an order that is not there. Religion tries to do this by projecting purpose on the purposeless, evil or good on the indifferent, order and structure on the disordered and unrelated.
The human world might be born out of the material and utterly dependent upon it, but that doesn’t make in any less real. On the contrary, it is on the rock bottom of brute reality that the “human experience” is built. The laws and actualities of the material world are not the caused but the causes of humanity. One cannot LIVE one’s life after the “morality” that guides an electron or a falling rock. But neither can one live in the compartmentalized world of religion, where our cruel parents, father Matter and mother Energy are rejected. To embrace ones decent is to forgive ones parents for all evil they have done. And to do so in the knowledge that they meant no harm, they just didn’t know better. That is a profound spiritual experience.

Allotetraploid said in August 22nd, 2007 at 8:16 pm

“What I decent from, is the viewpoint taken by not so few Americans, that America is a Christian nation.”

Speaking just as point of fact, it seems much more of a stretch to say it is not a nation of mostly Christians, than to say it is.

” In no way can that be considered as anything else than outright treason against the spirit of the fathers.”

This is silly. Assuming we’ve gotten past any fanatical idea of America being founded upon the Christian religion, or as a Christian nation, as opposed to a nation of Individual Rights under the rule of law, then to say that America is not mostly Christian in outlook, doesn’t hold water. Look at the founding of Maryland or Pennsylvania, Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson, mind you, attended Christian services IN held on the floor of the House of Representitives. Weekly.

The attempt, mostly by leftists, to brand American Christians as some sort of theocratic fascist bogeymen, is just plain ludicrous. Christianity in the West in general, and America, in the ways where it counts, is so secularized, as to make the thought of some type of Baptist Jihadi’s almost to silly even for South Park. And speaking of which:

“I tried to read Mrs. Rand once,… I stopped in the middle of the book, with a sensation similar to that of officer Barbrady in south park “Yes at first I was happy to be learning how to read, it seemed exciting and magical. But then I read this. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage and because of this piece of shit, I’m never reading again!””

Her style is like an old black & white movie, stark, razor clear, nothing but what is absolutely necessary to the story. If you’re looking to read pleasant eyecandy, it’d be torture, if you’re looking for the development of ideas in action, you’d be hard pressed to find her match. Naturaly enough though, personal preferences vary.

“Real contradictions can only arise within the same domain of truth.”

Assuming we’re talking outside the realm of preferences, Contradictions do not occur within Truth – it always indicates an error has been overlooked somewhere.

” Take the question of determinism as an example. It is perfectly true that the laws of causation allows for no freedom of will in an absolute sense.”

There’s your first clue that determinism is hogwash. If you truly examine determinism, you’ll find that it makes thought itself impossible. When you operate within a determinist framework, you are operating on the level of computers – they follow the laws of physics, nothing more. Thought requires free will – without it, just blinking lights.

“Then on the other hand, consider what it would really mean to have an uncaused will. It would mean that your will was random”

Nope, random would be just … well, random. Whether it comes from God, or some biological freak effect from which it arises, freewill IS. Even if someone were someday able to discover “Ah, when you rub this enzyme together with this synapse, a self sustaining feedback loop is sparked”, other than putting an answer to that fundamental question, it would change nothing at all about free will. We are creatures of self made soul, we are the causes of our own thoughts and actions – without an irreducible you inside of you, no decision or action will ever occur.

My personal view, is that Calvin and Luther attempted to operate outside their paygrade. Whether you wish to call it predestination or determinism, to say that you are fated, without choice, to your role and result in life, is to misunderstand what it is to be human, to blow off the whole point of the biblical God’s attempts to encourage the people and prophets to choose to follow his commandments and so forth. Without freewill, we’d be nothing but soft tissued rocks and other minerals. Now, if I were to look at it from a Sci-Fi point of view, I could imagine some divine consciousness operating form outside the realm of space and time as we understand it, who could see ahead in time, could see what choices people made, see the result, and know it – but that would be forseeing, not predestining. Then again, if I were speculating on what view point a divinity might have, I would guess that the whole point of creating a universe where creatures could operate under their own free will, would be precisely to enjoy the thrill of Not knowing for certain what would happen next. Why peak? Ludicrous to me, either way you look at it.

“The fault with Rand and any other absolutistic philosophy is that they deny what it is to be human. A philosophy that can’t accommodate for the experience of being human, is a dehumanizing one.” Heh, you should probably finish reading Rand, before concluding what her philosophy is and says – being pretty familiar with it myself, I can say you obviously don’t have a grasp of it or her point of view. Not particularly relevant to our main topic, but I’m just saying.

“One cannot LIVE one’s life after the “morality” that guides an electron or a falling rock.”

Ah, but after a fashion… you can. To exist, is to exist as something, everything has a nature, and by induction, that nature is discoverable. Our nature is to seek to understand and discover Truth, which ultimately rests on our need to exercise our freewill, and respect others necessity to do the same. Follow that line of reasoning, and you end up with some shade of the Classical Liberal grasp of property rights, Individual rights, representative government, science – and religion too, as that which reveres the causeless causor, the Prime mover which is the soul of Life and Truth and Free Will.

“But neither can one live in the compartmentalized world of religion, where our cruel parents, father Matter and mother Energy are rejected.”

Again, there is much you fail to see – perhaps a fear of what can’t be quantified? Keep in mind, that an irrational doesn’t reveal irrationality in Reality, only a limitation of our system of numbers used to quantify it. We, and our tools have their limits, but you can examine the properties of a triangle and a circle, and see that they are intact, they don’t fuzz out into an endless sequence of decimal numbers.

“To embrace ones decent is to forgive ones parents for all evil they have done. And to do so in the knowledge that they meant no harm, they just didn’t know better. That is a profound spiritual experience.”

I could be wrong, but I dont’ think you’re as far gone as you purport to be. The Universe IS. Existence exists, and the whole ball of wax of it is One, and Truth is whole and pervasive through out it all. Attempts to discover it, reveal it – those stories you so readily dismiss, are deeper than you let them appear. The wise grasp the interweavings of Truth, and their expressions in Art, Song and Story, reveal it.

Argh… getting too late, falling asleep at the keyboard – sorry to eat up so much of your space, hopefully I’ll get a post up on my site this weekend.

Blogodidact said in August 26th, 2007 at 8:04 am

Well just a wee bit late, but If you’re still interested, I’ve finally started to answer some of these issues that’ve been raisedhere
and here.

Blogodidact said in August 29th, 2007 at 6:02 am

Good! I’ll do as I did with Godwin and answer your post with a blog post of my own. The semester has started though so it might take a little longer for me to put togehet the replay.

Allotetraploid said in August 29th, 2007 at 6:09 am

I look forward to it! And with this being a three day weekend, I should be able to complete the posts this week.

Blogodidact said in September 1st, 2007 at 6:04 pm

I’ve posted my reply. Hope you enjoy the read!

Allotetraploid said in September 2nd, 2007 at 8:57 am

I suppose you are verz happz in your life?
how often do you think about dropping all these religious stuff and enjoz your life ?
Remmember you are not getting any younger.

Annon said in March 4th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

i can understand your views on christianity but keep your shitty big headed tranny gay mother fucking ideas to your self why dont you just not be fucking buming religion all the time… for what youv’e done you have angered god. You must correct your sin. I’m Watching you, i Know you.. do you know me??? im sitting in the corner watching you… be careful i dont get you … tonight maybe i could pay you a little visit in a year even. Watch where you tred in life

summat im not tellin u said in May 21st, 2008 at 7:40 pm

Correct my sin? Oh no! I plan to indulge in it to the fullest and may Hell abide the day of my coming.

Allotetraploid said in May 21st, 2008 at 11:02 pm

why do you have so little faith ? Jesus Christ didn’t came to the world to condemn it, but to save the world, you stand so blind while looking straight into the face of Truth. we worship the living God, He can heal you without using pills and even though you turn Him down time and time again, cursing Him when ever you can, He stil loves you, because you are His son/daughter and you are my brother/sister, i’m not forcing religion down your throat, i just ask of you to go and buy a book, read through the first few pages, at least en and do it with an open mind, if by then you don’t believe, then God has a greater plan for you. . .

sharky said in July 6th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

yea umm……….lets begin at the beginb how did we get here with no god? what is ur thouts on that??????hmmm waiting for ansewer wait we coudnt of thats y scentist are uncovering things about the what is in the bible that everything is true right??????? yea had to think ha well lets c here bing atheist gets ughh no where yea beliving that we juss magily appured here makes perfect sence!!!!!!!!

rose said in December 17th, 2008 at 5:44 am

why is everyone denying God and Jesus? why is the Bible forbidden in some countries? why is it normal to believe in aliens and weird to believe in God? doesn’t that tell you something?

JesusFreak said in February 19th, 2009 at 6:17 pm

you are so wrong. if you only knew.

missdulcie11@aol.com said in March 3rd, 2009 at 9:12 pm

you have a lot of faith to beleive that there isn’t a God to take care of and watch over you. Jesus loves you no matter what and hopefully you’ll see that one day. you’ll be in my prayers.

love,

ktbeth said in August 19th, 2009 at 3:15 am

Wow i cannot believe my eyes… God has nothing to do with science or he said she said. It’s all about FAITH! without faith your lost. Buy the bible read it… i mean
“I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn’t, than live my life as if there isn’t, and die to find out there is.”

god loves you said in November 27th, 2009 at 8:38 am

God bless and have mercy on everyone who does not beleave in his son jesus christ. I pray for all your sake.

Jwint said in February 17th, 2010 at 5:36 am