You may have noticed from my previous postings that I have very little respect for most anti-theists. Occasionally I come across anti-theists that I can respect, but they are generally few and far between. Conversely, most of the theists I come across are very respectable people and only occasionally do I find theists that worthy of real contempt.
Strangely enough, I attribute this to religion. Most theists learn at a very early age that if they want to follow some religion, they are going to come across people with different religions. If they want to be respected enough to be allowed to believe what they want, they need to be respectful of others and allow them to believe what they want.
The anti-theists on the other hand don’t think they follow any religion. By definition, anti-theism is a position that is opposed to theism and they all seem to be sure that theism is a religion so there is no way that they could be following something they are opposed to.
What the anti-theists fail to see is that a religion is nothing more than a way of running one’s life based on a faith. A faith is nothing more than holding one or more beliefs. And a belief is holding some unproven idea as true without the evidence to support that position.
Placed in a mathematical context, a belief is some assumption, being held as true for the sake of reasoning. There is nothing wrong with it, but for the anti-theists, when this is done in a religious context it is faith and it is bad. But if the same thing is done in science it is sound logical reasoning and is good.
It all sounds like the actual correct answer to the question: “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin”. Which of course is: “Whatever number makes my argument sound stronger”.
Theists might try to evangelize me, but they stop pretty quickly to avoid me doing the same thing back to them. I have no problem being as irritating to them as they are to me. This tit for tat type of response seems to quickly settle down to a position of mutually disagreeing with each other’s position, but with respect for each others right to think what they want.
Anti-theists on the other hand are quite different. They seem to want to play an “I’m superior to you” type of position. If you don’t agree with their positions, they begin to sling insults and logical fallacies your way. If you respond in kind, it quickly turns into a childish “Whose daddy’s dick is bigger” type of argument.
The main difference is that only a small number of theists will actually resort to such childish tactics. Most of them, once they realize they can’t convert you to their position, will at least have the decency to allow you to believe the way you want to.
On the other hand, most of the anti-theists will actually resort to such tactics as their primary means to push their agenda. It’s much less common for the anti-theists to realize they have picked a loosing battle, give up and simply get on with life.
I suspect this is due to how most anti-theists come into existence. For the vast majority of them, they started out as theists. At some point in time, something happened that that destroyed their faith. It doesn’t seem to matter if it was something they felt was right was condemned by their religion, they where treated unfairly, or they logically deduced how wrong their faith was.
One way or another they got the idea that theism was wrong and now they are against it. Hence the reason I call them anti-theists. They are specifically about being opposed to theism. For many of them, this amounts to throwing their lot in with what they see as the strongest position opposing religion which of course is science.
The reality is that science is totally separate from religion and there is not a single place where the two schools of thought overlap. Sure there are idiot theists that try to use science to promote their positions, but even most theists consider those idiots to be whack jobs.
However, in the anti-theist camps, the norm seem to be people that think science is a reasonable way to show the theists are wrong. Problem is, without evidence, science says nothing about the correctness or wrongness of any position. It is simply unscientific to talk about something without evidence, yet that doesn’t stop the anti-theists from claiming rational thought is a good tool to refute theism.
You will notice a distinct push, especially by the most extreme anti-theists, to take on a position known as scientism. It is a position that only science can be used to answer questions, and includes a distinct tendency to ridicule non-scientific arguments.
It appears to be a kind of delusions of grandeur. The vast majority of the things people talk about are non-scientific so therefore they are unimportant. On the other hand, only a small elite group of intelligent people are qualified to talk about the really important things. The delusion is that if this “real important” stuff was actually so important, more people would be talking about it.
It’s almost like an upper classman, ridiculing as lower classman for not knowing something. It can only be described as a kind of undue arrogance. What makes the arrogance worse, it that it leads the anti-theists to have an over inflated confidence in the soundness of their position.
The reality is when it comes to a question of the existence of a god; there is no evidence one way or another. To claim that science can shed any light on the issue is either ignorant of what science is, or a down right dishonest attempt to baffle their opponent with scientific sounding bullshit.
So the school of hard knocks has taught me that to start with theists should be given the benefit of the doubt and be respected until they show they don’t deserve it. On the other hand anti-theists need to earn their respect.
As an atheist, I don’t believe a god exists and I don’t believe a god doesn’t exist. From my standpoint, the only thing wrong is the declaration that either position is wrong. What decides the question of the level of respect I will give is the level of respect I receive.
Good article, I'm a theist, but you make some good points. You seem to be very respectful and don't immediately look down on someone for being a theist. I respect that:)
ReplyDelete@PeacePolicy I have always thought that a good atheist just like a good theist holds their ideas to use to guide THEIR own life. The bad atheists as well as the bad theists want to use the ideas to guide other people's lives.
ReplyDeleteNon violently oppose religious doctrine that promotes hate, prejudice, non free thinking and where it causes harm. Not singling out any particular faith. Where the faith causes harm no longer can people of sense and reason stand by and be perceived to respect their dogma through this perceived unspoken agreement to not speak out for fear of causing offense. There is nothing we could say or do that would come close to the offense the doctrines of faith create to those of us with any sense of decency, fairness and love of all humanity. Ironically unlike the many conditions the faiths place upon their acceptance of certain people, groups etc... Our love for humanity is truly unconditional. If it harms none then do as you will.
ReplyDeleteIslam and Judaism are seen as minority groups in the West and as racist far right organisations hide behind the banner of anti-religion. We have and want no association with such groups and do all that is physically possible to prevent such groups or their members using our page as a vehicle for their hate.
Unfortunately, antitheism is the active opposition to theism. Many antitheists oppose theism because they believe it is bad for society.
DeleteIt's ironic that you mention doctrines that promote hate and prejudice because the opposition to theism (particularly on the belief that it is socially bad) is completely analogous to the opposition to homosexuality based on the belief that it is bad. (I'm not talking about the folks who believe in persecuting homosexuals--just those who believe homosexuality is socially wrong and who peacefully oppose it).
I wish antitheism was as you said it is; however, I've rarely heard of (and never met) an antitheist who didn't use their antitheism as an excuse to belittle people of faith.
For their Blasphemy Day celebration, a local university antitheism group chalked images across campus of Mohammed molesting a little girl and of him being raped. Additionally, they wrote rude things about him and other important Islamic figures. In spite of this, the Islamic community didn't lash out and the local Christian community expressed sincere condolences and support to the Muslims who felt they'd been personally attacked. Even a few atheists denounced the chalkings.
It's really sad because the Muslims here are a small minority and they've been very peaceful, coexisting with everyone. They've never hurt anyone and they've been upstanding members of our community. :(
I'm going to have to disagree with you on a couple points.
ReplyDeleteI'm an Anti-theist, but I'm not a militant anti-theist. I never push my ideals on anyone unless asked. I simply believe that having faith in a deity isn't healthy. I don't use high level science to make my argument when I'm asked I use logic, reason, and real life experiences of myself and others I know.
For you to throw every anti-theist into a big barrel and say we are all the same is not fair any more then doing it to theists would be.
Also at the end of your post you state "As an atheist, I don’t believe a god exists and I don’t believe a god doesn’t exist." This doesn't make sense. The definition of an atheist is a person who does not believe in God or gods. So at best you'd be agnostic. When you can't identify properly what you yourself are you shouldn't be trying to classify others.
@Not the Hero The distinction you are trying to make misses the point. Some theists and most antitheists actively BELIEVE there is something wrong with people that disagree with them. Your "unhealthy" comment for example.
ReplyDeleteAtheism is all about NOT making a judgement about what other people choose to believe. You on the other hand are making a judgement about other people. This is the distinction I am talking about.
Taking a position that is opposed to theism is by definition taking a position that there is something wrong with it. Atheism is simply choosing not to believe either position and since there is no belief, attempting to claim some belief is good or evil simply has no basis.
An agnostic by definition uses the justification that they do not know as the basis for their choice to not believe. An atheist on the other hand KNOWS you cannot prove a god exists or doesn't exist so therefore choosing either position is just an exercise of a faith.
Most people that claim they are agnostic atheists will show themselves as actually anti-theists when they start to talk about what they feel is wrong with the theists.
You are taking the typical theist definition of atheism and trying to hold it. Atheism is not the opposite of theism, anti-theism IS. Simply put, an atheist doesn't believe the theists or the anti-theists. Neither side can make their case so both are not to be believed.
Definitions from a dictionary.
ReplyDeleteAthiest: –noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Agnostic: –noun
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods. (atheism is the antonym, This means opposite)
Anti-theism: The active opposition to theism, regardless of whether god exists or not.
I think you may have been confused before.
@Not the Hero You are making the same kind of mistake most people make about the definition of atheism. Denial or disbelief of a god is a specific kind of atheism known as hard atheism. Agnostic is a justification for the choice to believe or not believe in a god. Atheism is an antonym of theism only if you think that there are ONLY two diametrically opposed positions of atheism verse theism. In reality there are many possible positions between a belief in a god's existance and a belief in the non-existance of a god. You are using the set of anti-ATHEISTIC definitions used by many fundamenalist theists. A lack of belief is not a denial or a disbelief. The atheistic position is that there is no evidence that a god exists or doesn't exist so taking either position is flawed at best. More importantly, given there is no evidence one way or another, choosing to be opposed to theism is just as illogical as choosing to be a theist. You cannot show another's beliefs are wrong by holding beliefs of your own.
ReplyDeleteI'm using the definitions according to what is accepted by the philosophy community. In layman's terms.
ReplyDeleteAtheist: Someone who believes there is no god.
Agnostic: Someone who can't say yes or no to the existence of god.
Theist: Someone who believes in god.
Anti-theist: Someone who is against the belief in god.
The definitions are built off of the structure of words following the rules set out by the language they were founded in. Latin. You can't change the definition of the words to best suit your beliefs.
As for me showing someone else's beliefs to be wrong using my own beliefs is a fallacy, I know. I have no intention of doing that. I hope to change people's beliefs the way mine were built; through education, logic and reason.
I take the argument of whether god exists out of the question. It then becomes a question of should or shouldn't you believe in god. A measure of pros and cons if you will. There is evidence for that type of argument, all you have to do is look at what theism has done and is doing. I don't understand how that can be considered illogical.
So you are appealing to the authority to some philosophical community that you agree with. The common definition of atheism is a LACK of belief in a god, not a belief there is no god.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to go after the etymology of the words, then atheism is "WITHOUT THEISM". This is not a claim theism is wrong, it's a claim that a person is not a theist because they lack the requisite belief.
So you admit that you are evangelizing your beliefs the same as the worst of the theist do. You simply use the position that people that don't agree with you are uneducated or don't use logic and reason.
The issue is YOU deciding what someone else should believe or not. You do not have that right any more than a theist has the right to tell you want to believe.
Theism does NOTHING. You seem to want to blame it for the woes of the world when the blame should be placed on the people causing the problem. Their justifications for what they do is simply irrelevent.
Or is it that you want be an appologist for douche bags by excusing them because they believe in a religion?
The illogic is thinking that you are doing anything different from what they are doing.
Thank for this article. Im sick of Anti Theist. First off i find the idea of getting rid of religion a impossible task. Secondly one thing a lot of Anti Theist done seem to understand. You cant stop Hate and Intolerance with more Hate and Intolerance. You can only stop it with understanding and respect. I have nothing against normal atheist. But i hate Anti-Theism. Personally i think there almost as bad as religious fundamentalism. Im not religious. When i was a kid i almost never went to church. But i did attend Sunday school. And for me anyone who is bombs a abortion clinic. Is hardly a following the teaching of Jesus Christ and are hardly a christian. If Jesus was real man or not. Doesn't really matter. I feel the main things that he taught Love, Forgiveness, understanding and helping others. Where not bad things. I find alot of churches are more fire and brimstone then teachings of Jesus. Which is weird consider there is no hell in the bible. The original Hebrew word for hell was Sheol which basically mean Grave (aka hell is non existence)
ReplyDeleteYou said: "What the anti-theists fail to see is that a religion is nothing more than a way of running one’s life based on a faith."
ReplyDeleteAnd what you fail to see is that this is utterly naive. If religious folk were able to keep their rules to "one's self," then there wouldn't even be anti-theists. But the reality is that theists are contstantly trying to inject their gods into the secular law and public school system so that EVERYONE is bound to accept their beliefs.
That is why anti-theists are pissy. They don't want to be legally commanded to abide by some luantic theist's dogma. If your religious views make you think it's bad to buy booze on Sunday, that's fine. Keep it to "one's self," and don't buy booze. But when you inject that belief into the law so that EVERYONE can't buy booze on Sunday, then you are going to hear it from me. If people who love each other can't get married because it makes your supernatural sky wizard angry, then you are going to hear it from me.
Anti-theists are people who have simply had it with pushy and preachy theists who will not rest until everyone is subject to their dogmas. But, of course, you just omit this out as if it's not the case.
And how is that any different than anti-theists trying to inject their beliefs into the secular law and public schools so EVERYONE is bound to accept their beliefs?
DeleteThere are also lots of real atheists that don't want to bound by some lunatic anti-theist's dogma either. If you are too stupid to buy the booze on Saturday that's your problem not a problem of theists pushing their beliefs.
So in other words you are just a malcontent pissed off your particular brand of crazy is not accepted by the majority in the democacy you live in.
Maybe you should wake up and realize that normal people have simply had it with pushy and preachy anti-theists like you
If there is something wrong with what the theists are doing, then why are you doing the same thing?
One, not a democracy, good lord (excuse the expression), we live in a constitutional republic. Two, saying that having to buy the booze on a Saturday is not a problem of theists pushing their beliefs on others is....well, it's astoundingly ironic to me.
DeleteWhat if I was busy Saturday? What if I didn't know I wanted to drink? Now why is my buying alcohol an offense to the person who chooses not to buy it on Sunday based on some religious pretext?
Help me see how wanting to have the choice to do things that while you don't find moral, are not hurting anyone, and ultimately affect just my own person. I agree that churches should have the right to not offer a ceremony if it is against their faith. I disagree that they have the right to affect it as a public policy.
When will religious people realize that protection of everyone's rights is in their own self interest. If anti-theists were in charge and made laws against practicing your religion, would you just accept a "Suck it up buttercup?" from us? If we were the majority, would you just accept it, or would you also fight for your rights?
Way too many times it is made out to seem as if atheists and if you prefer it, anti-theists want to take away your rights, and that is simply not true. The only moral way to change a persons position is through persuasion. I don't want to make you stop believing through force, why would you want to use force to make me follow your rules?
I believe you and anyone else has the right to believe what they wish. But to expect that no matter how far out a belief is, that it is protected from inspection, and introspection is naive at best and harmful at worst. There are fringe groups that believe removing of a female clitoris is perfectly acceptable. Should I stand by and not object?
You seem to think that an anti-theist has no logical reason to be against religion, and it is far from the truth.
Oh, and saying that just because you can not disprove a God does or does not exist does not mean you can not venture an opinion. I reject the theistic claims. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to believe there is a God. And even if he showed up now, it would not mean he was worthy of worship.
But in the end, all I can try to do is persuade you that I find your claims to be wrong if you are a theist. Being shrill, and or rude is counter productive.
Grow the fuck up. An anti-theist is just as much a religious kook as the people they rail against. If you don't have the planning skills to know to buy the alcohol on Saturday you are just an idiot.
DeleteSo basically just want to not allow people that disagree with you the right to vote on the laws because your group of backward idiots don't have a majority. Maybe you should realize you pushing your idea of what laws should be is no different than what you are complaining they are doing. You are just a whiny little kid that's pissed your type of crazy is not popular enough to affect the laws.
When it comes to laws, beliefs have nothing to do with it. All that matters are the votes. You don't get to pick and choose what motivations other people are allowed to use when they decide how they will vote.
Just because you label your reasons as logical doesn't make it so. Nobody gives a rat's ass if accept or reject other people's religious claims. If you want the right to believe the stupid shit YOU believe, they must have the same right. If you want your beliefs to influence your vote, they must have the same right.
The problem is YOU are unable to persuade any large group of people that theist beliefs are wrong. You are just crying because your arguments suck so bad.
But you are saying that where people don't live in a democracy beliefs don't matter. You're just conforming to law, and law changes over time, and law itself is dictated by beliefs.
DeleteOverall I agree with your message, I think that reactionaries don't understand democracy. To have religious beliefs is a right.
DeleteYou really don't understand what a democracy is if you think laws are dictated by belief.
DeleteIn fact it's mostly about not letting beliefs dictate laws.
So tell me how religious beliefs not being a right would stop anybody from having them?
It's about having them in a context. Where liberty and equality of such opinions make historical sense. History somewhat begins with writing and was boosted by the printing press.
DeleteDeclaring some context doesn't change anything. You can attempt to play political games all you want, but that also doesn't change anything.
DeleteAdding history to your politics may sound good if you are trying to get elected, but it still doesn't change anything.
History still exists just the same even for people using languages without writing systems so it doesn't start with writing. Furthermore, there is no printing in those languages.
So are you for people who want to believe whatever they want or not?
DeleteThe more relevant question today is if you are for the self-determination of people around the world or not.
What kind of a idiot would think that ANY person was not in a position of being fully self-determined to start with?
DeleteIt's only you dude that moves your arm. No body else does it for you. You are completely self determined.
And NO, not you or anybody else has complete freedom to do what ever they want. There are always other people with the same capabilities and they will stop you from doing some things.
Political buzz words are not arguments for anything.
lol, I said the word people meaning populations, nations, governments and stuff. Don't you talk in the US also about a government by the people and for the people.
DeleteI don't get how democracy would be exempt of beliefs on law. The very constitution presupposes a regime of law by belief, and people passing laws act also by it.
Do you really think a political slogan has anything to do with how it works ???
ReplyDeleteYou seem to want to use an abstract term like "belief" to provide reasons for a concrete term like "law". The law "is" regardless of what anybody wants to believe. Pretending there was first some belief and because of it came some law is to try to raise law up to be a religion. It's not.
So when people make laws they don't have any belief in doing so? When a law is in place people also interpret it from what it says or as it was intended or not.
DeleteComing from the position of the society no one is fully self-determined from the start. You're arguing that rights (presumably universal) are subjected to the law. That's where some conflicts come from.
You cannot show they are believing ANYTHING. That is just a fantasy in your own head where you are trying to explain them doing something you don't like.
DeleteGet it through you head. NO right is universal.
You are inventing a conflict to justify your position.
Saying that votes is all that matters is kind of ok, besides making nonsense where votes don't matter, it seems that you are just taking sides with "whatever takes more votes", which is not expected from people who are supposed to be thinkers, it makes sense to talk about it when people don't understand even that but that takes place where votes matter. How the way people are voting influence your thinking anyway, it's pure marketing since the 50's.
DeleteDude, It's called a democracy for a reason. It's not going to be a monarchy of the thinkers no matter how much you want it to be. Just because you think, doesn't mean you think for everybody else. I'm sorry if your marketing plans aren't as successful as other people's marketing plans.
DeleteHaha, votes matter if you are trying to get elected, afterwards it only matters who funded your election.
DeleteYour personal beliefs on wheter you should follow the law or not isn't accepted in the mainstream law interpretation (as civil disobedience).
Saying that there are no beliefs in law looks like you are trying to make it objective, when it is based on a whole literature and perceptions about what it should be.
To say that no personal beliefs should influence it because it embodies the collective will or something would make more sense.
LOL, don't you get the exact same set of people fund BOTH sides.
DeleteYou sound like a kid planning on how to make sure mom and dad don't catch you.
You are just trying to put together some kind of understanding of why the law doesn't do what you want. It's simply not suppose to.
LOL, anthropomorphize it into the evil Borg collective. How is that rational?
I get it.
DeleteThat's a belief that you should act like differently if someone could catch you or not. Why not if no one is gonna catch you doing it? At least I'm gonna call you an asshole.
The 'Law' or what law doens't do what I want to?
The will of the majority in some kinds of elections, for presidency for example, is something that legitimize the use of power in a democracy. It may be a rationalization but it is certainly not a anthropomorphization.
You are unbelievably gullible. You must live in a young democracy where people are still so stupid to believe that elections create the "will of the majority".
DeleteYou where the one proposing an anthropomorphism of this non existent "will of the majority" by looking at it as a collective.
Sure, but I think you are being so pragmatic in your arguments going down for how things works that you are ignoring anything coming from how things are supposed to be. While basing oneself on how things are will often hold more ground I'm just trying to describe the electoral process in a democracy. Saying that the law is there against your personal wishes and that is why it works comes close to doing that same thing.
DeleteHow things are "supposed to be" is just an expression of your beliefs that most other people find unfounded.
DeleteThere isn't any "suppose to be". It is just the way it is no matter how much you like it or not.
Why do you think the electoral process is so important? It's not. Only people in young democracies actually buy the belief that their vote has an effect on anything.
You need to get over this childish belief that you can understand it. There is nothing to understand. You are not going to be able to control it. You may come up with a few things that you feel explain it to you, but it's a delusion of grandeur to think your understanding trumps the understanding that others have.
So other people should at least be able to articulate to me what their understandings are. Being able to explain it to myself includes a capacity to explain it, and other things too, like other things tha can be explained.
DeleteSo "supposed to be" in to be taken in the sense of why this and not that in a myriad of alternatives.
But I'm getting some pattern here, the law is not about what you want, science is not what is unfalsifiable, and god is not anything you may think it is (the via negativa of describing god). The only analytical representention of the empirical is by using the negative.
LOL, so you are some kind authority that should be able to place demands on others.
DeleteWho cares about the "why" in "should be"? "Should be" is just somebody complaining it's not the way they would choose to make it.
So you REALLY are not getting it. There is a profound symmetry of the world. Defining things with a complement is no different than defining them without a complement.
If you cannot figure out that not everything is a simple Boolean dichotomy you really are just caught in 19th century excluded middle type of thinking.
Why is it you have such a problem with the regularity, recursive, and recursively enumerable aspects of the universe around you?
If things are A instead of B, you may explain A by C, D or E; so A is supposed by C, D or E.
DeleteThe complement not-A for A never turn into an specific thing though, B, C and D may be not-A, but by virtue of being not A they never become B, C or D.
By saying what something is not you get somewhat may get near of what something is,
is the only way of advancing intersubjective knowledge?
lol, the set of the Universe has cardinality one?
WTF are you talking about? Your math and logic skills are appalling.
ReplyDeleteYou are attempting to take material logics and state them in a formal logic format. But that's total nonsense. Contingencies don't turn into necessities because you attempt to state them in a formal way.
So you still don't get that taken from outside a universe it's cardinality must be one or it's not a universe. From inside the universe it may have any cardinality by the cardinality of things outside the universe is zero.
You REALLY need to learn about things like Russell's Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy.
The Multiverse would have cardinality one too.
DeleteWhat I've said about explaining things still makes sense tough, it's supposed by other things C, D, E instead of hypotheticals X, Y, Z.
So how is a cardinality of one some kind of problem? You are ignoring the context in which the cardinality is counted.
DeleteYou really don't get the difference between contingency and necessity. It's as if you want to have the certainty of a necessity but can only find contingency.
Explaining things based on a contingency is not a definition of truth. But you would know that if you ever studied the philosophy of science.
Ah you said something about cardinality before, I thought you were referring to something like this, that anything that is thought may have cardinality one. That anything may have cardinality one may be a fun fact of how we think or have something to do with reality, who knows.
DeleteSo you are saying that something is certain out of necessity if it is a tautology. That is fine and dandy. Bringing Aquinas back for a bit he said that that why we cannot know god, but there are certain ways we may talk of it nominally, that is tautologically, and of course it is the necessary being.
But what does it have anything to do with Democracy which was what we we're talking about!?!? Oh yes, you said pretending there's a belief behind law raises it up to religion. The argument from 'that's the law' works very well, even asking what does the law say, but we're not discussing any law here, even the law would be determined by other dynamics like power. Sure you may deny the validity of a vague term like power because it depends on many relations in society. You are saying you're against people pushing beliefs in the 'law', I'm saying there are beliefs in the law, how are you defining beliefs? How the law is exempt from them (besides pushing you out of something like in an kafkian dream).
So you don't know what cardinality is. Maybe you should study the difference between cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers.
DeleteWOW, you don't know what a tautology is either. Logical necessity is not a tautology. It is a consequence of formal logic.
You CLAIM there is belief in law is so you can justify to yourself why the laws exist. Your personal justifications might make you feed good but have no basis in fact.
You are trying to make the typical religious argument that "because of some belief" something is the way it is.
No, things are the way they are and just because you want to have some explanation that makes you feel good, we should reverse the cause and effect.
Your choice of using a belief to explain the law is an effect WITHIN YOUR HEAD not the cause of the law. Once the law is created, it just is. It needs no justification. It needs no explanation.
The universe could be taken to be one which is the good. And somehow it is necessary too. I'm not sure how much of math and logic would go into it.
DeleteI still don't understand such view of law, as it is not something that applies to everyone equally by magic for example, and of course it need enforcement, and more importantly it changes over time, you are disregarding change, implementation, and other things here, it's not up for someone to do that alone, but your depiction doesn't seem to match what is going on when people talk about the law.
It could be all that is either good or bad. Excluding things by definition means it's not a universe.
DeleteNo, change is one of the primary reason you are having problems with the ideas. What was the old saying "If you ever figure it all out it will immediately change into something even more unexplainable."
You really don't get this inside the system / outside the system idea. The "I" language inside your head, cannot be universalized to a common external "E" language.
Just like your personal morality cannot be generalized to morality for everybody.
There's no bad really because everything comes from the good.
DeleteAs long something is a language can't it be translated? Why not? Or how could it be?
There's no good or bad because the universe really couldn't care less what your personal likes and dislikes are.
DeleteYou can only translate between two languages when there is a homomorphism between them. If the structure they impose on their respective vocabularies is not the same, translation is not possible.
You can translate between E-Languages specifically because all humans have a common I-Language.
"There's no good or bad because the universe really couldn't care less what your personal likes and dislikes are." I agree whole heartily with this sentence, it's just also that not having personal likes and dislikes is a close description of having the higher good.
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying... there is a way to translate I-languages to the one true E-language, :).
Everybody has likes and dislikes. By your definition the only higher good would be for someone to be dead.
ReplyDeleteNo there is one I-Language used internally by all humans and many different E-languages in the form of normal human languages (English, Portuguese, Spanish, French, etc.)
The sensory motor system of the human brain serializes the I-Language into E-Language when speaking and de-serializes E-Language into I-Language when listening.
I saw that coming, it's not like being dead because nothing precludes live people to have it.
DeleteIt serializes as in it puts words in order? Languages may have something to do with physicality even something like intelligence I would think. Is this your own conjecture or are you basing it on something more.
If you cannot define a metric to measure your "good", there cannot BE a "higher good".
DeleteHave you never studied modern linguistics? Get on You Tube and watch some of Noam Chomsky's lectures on linguistics. Get on the Virtual Linguistic Campus and take some classes.
The subject is way more evolved than you think.
That E-and I-languages is Chomsky stuff? The Universe or the One is also the Good. Without taking part in the one there's even no being.
DeleteThere is a reason Chomsky is the preeminent linguist of the modern era.
DeleteIf the "One" is also the "Good", there is no evil and idea of a morality is a delusion made up to comfort those who need external validation.
Because I-internal and E-external sounds so much like bullshit that it couldn't be otherwise?
DeleteThere's no evil for sure. I've got to check on that, there's less than good but externally no one can affect someone that knows the good.
Denying evil to religious kooks is maybe the biggest challenge to their views, I completely stand by that.
So right, you somebody that hasn't studied the subject, is more qualified to describe the field than somebody who actually founded the modern version of the field.
DeleteYea right, if someone "knows the good" they are impervious to being shot in the face.
Teaching anti-theists that they are just as kooky as theists is a way bigger challenge.
I've heard of Chomsky being one of the greatest modern linguists, I've never heard abou I and E languages.
DeleteNothing stops the knowledge of the good. Even if claiming knowledge about it may be out of it, as knowledge implies something that comes from it.
Then you have never studied much of his work in linguistics. Don't you get that modern linguistics is DOMINATED by Chomsky's work.
DeleteYou should most likely get familiar with his work on the political front. Knowledge of good is VERY easy to stop. And acceptance of bad is quite easy to manufacture :-)