mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 6, 2014 9:55:20 GMT -5
I trust you can advance a theory as to what does make it a religion, then. Worshipping a golden calf doesn't make it a God - but, from the viewpoint of the worshipper, is that a relevant datum?
I don't feel the need to advance a theory. Because one wants others to buy into one's "theory" doesn't mean they're going to do so - and, it shouldn't. It's perfectly okay with me if you believe one thing and I believe another.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Feb 6, 2014 10:01:40 GMT -5
I assume you're understanding your dictionary definition the way most people understand most dictionary definitions, i.e. that not all headings must be met in all cases for an entity to match the definition. Correct.
Are you saying that conservatism, or liberalism for that matter, does not amount to "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons?" I suppose in a very basic way, you could have a point with this particular heading. However, it's simply a snapshot and not enduring. Liberalism and conservatism are political philosophies which shift and change with progress as society shifts and changes while core basic principles of both may remain stable. Religions do not shift and change as those who worship within those frames of reference believe their beliefs are infallible. Therefore, no change or at the least any change is negligible.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 10:14:15 GMT -5
It absolutely is. I just wondered if you'd be willing to share the basis of your belief. It's fine that you're not.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 10:18:45 GMT -5
Really?
The Catholic Church under Pope Francis is the same as under Saint Peter?
Of course religions shift and change. Sectarian schisms abound, and even within a sect there are wide variations in interpretation of dogma. Even something as uncontroversial in context as the Athanasian Creed is unlikely to be understood and applied identically by any two members of the same church.
Here I think you strike at the absolute core of religion - it is a framing vehicle for those beliefs the adherent would will infallible. It is in that context that I view the dogmatic dialectic of the modern two-party state in this country.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,555
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 6, 2014 10:23:02 GMT -5
I trust you can advance a theory as to what does make it a religion, then. Worshipping a golden calf doesn't make it a God - but, from the viewpoint of the worshipper, is that a relevant datum?
I think Cereb's number 5 on the list above is what makes something a 'religion' - ritual observance of faith. I don't have faith in any political programs, or frankly anything that men create. I may favor one political viewpoint or another, or believe that a certain policy will have a better chance of success than another one, but I don't have 'faith' in that viewpoint or policy in the same way that I have faith in God, because viewpoints or policies are man made and God is not.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Feb 6, 2014 10:25:02 GMT -5
Really?
The Catholic Church under Pope Francis is the same as under Saint Peter?
Of course religions shift and change. Sectarian schisms abound, and even within a sect there are wide variations in interpretation of dogma. Even something as uncontroversial in context as the Athanasian Creed is unlikely to be understood and applied identically by any two members of the same church.
Here I think you strike at the absolute core of religion - it is a framing vehicle for those beliefs the adherent would will infallible. It is in that context that I view the dogmatic dialectic of the modern two-party state in this country. Fab. So we can agree to disagree!
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,555
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 6, 2014 10:27:23 GMT -5
I think very few people in this country have such firm faith in their political beliefs that they believe them to be infallible.
There are some hard core right wing conservatives, and some hard core left leaning ones, but the vast majority of Americans shift back and forth between the two extremes, and few of us have much confidence at all in politicians.
Perhaps that's what's wrong with the country - big mouthed zealots from the extremes are running things, while the rest of us, disgusted and cynical, look on in dismay.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,227
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 6, 2014 10:27:25 GMT -5
Really?
The Catholic Church ... The Catholic Church is not a religion. It is an institution.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2014 10:28:16 GMT -5
I assume you're understanding your dictionary definition the way most people understand most dictionary definitions, i.e. that not all headings must be met in all cases for an entity to match the definition.
Are you saying that conservatism, or liberalism for that matter, does not amount to "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons?"
that would depend on whether you consider the socratic method and reason a "set of beliefs". imo, they are the opposite of belief, in that the methods themselves are overtly non-dogmatic. we get into these circular arguments a LOT on this board, where the basic meaning of things is assaulted by those that would rather things didn't mean what they are generally accepted to mean.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 10:29:30 GMT -5
So following the Green Bay Packers is a religion?
And campaigning for a political candidate, with the badges and the bumper stickers and the slogans, isn't?
I don't see God as essential to religion: put another way, some entity performs the function of God in a traditional religion for any secular religion. If, when you get down to brass tacks, your viewpoint is based on truths you assert to be self-evident, you're invoking something that does the work of God in support of those truths. The dispute over whether freedom is maximized when people are granted leeway to do as much as possible for themselves, or protected as much as possible from what others do to them, tends in its fundamentals towards this essentially religious character.
All of which potentially rather combative verbiage aside, I accept that the Catholicism that, say, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor have in common is a different thing from the 'secular religion' by which I'd denote their widely divergent political philosophies. I'd argue that it's different because it's not, at heart, really what they have faith in, but that would entail a very casuistic debate about what faith is - in the course of which I'd have to acknowledge circumstances (the passing of a loved one springs to mind) in which political philosophy would be quite useless and traditional religion more applicable.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 10:36:03 GMT -5
Oh, definitely.
Accurate nitpick. Nonetheless, Catholicism is a religion. Is Catholicism understood or practiced now as it was in the 1st century BCE?
You're entitled to your opinion. Nevertheless, reason rests on axioms, and axioms are declarations of faith. I find it hard to conceive of a less dogmatic system, incidentally, than Zermelo-Frankel set theory with Axiom of Choice, so it seems odd for you to uphold reason as the antithesis of dogma.
Also, I'm not sure why Socratic method earns a shout-out in the context of either liberalism or conservatism. The terminology provides the clue: it's a method, which can be appropriated to any system of belief. In the same way, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and atheists can all utilize long division.
Hegel would say that the prevailing thesis gives rise to a competing antithesis, and would point out that no culture has a monopoly on universal truth. I afford no special dignity to a belief because some accident of history makes it widely held in some community - which is an authentically non-dogmatic position, actually.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 6, 2014 10:37:13 GMT -5
So following the Green Bay Packers is a religion?
I can absolutely guarantee you that to their fans, it is. (Said from the perspective of someone who lives only a few hours below the cheddar curtain).
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 10:38:54 GMT -5
For the matter of that, most Christians fall short of stoning women found in adultery, Biblical exhortations to the contrary.
The point that most people in practice don't adhere strongly to the religion doesn't undermine the characterization of it as a religion - and people in my experience are just as apt to invoke the authority of a secular religion in the defense of a personal prejudice as they are something we'd all recognize as a traditional religion.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 10:41:15 GMT -5
I totally agree, for the record.
I've had an experience that probably most people here haven't, of being directly involved in an Auld Firm football match in Glasgow - an environment in which the simmering sectarian tension between Catholic and Protestant marries perfectly with the secular tribal rivalry between the Hoops and the Gers. The connection's most explicit in that case, but it exists more generally in any field where a mass of people can unify around the exaltation of some entity.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Feb 6, 2014 10:41:55 GMT -5
Really?
The Catholic Church ... The Catholic Church is not a religion. It is an institution. Thanks Bills!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2014 10:44:32 GMT -5
You're entitled to your opinion. Nevertheless, reason rests on axioms, and axioms are declarations of faith.
what axioms?
edit: let's use this definition of reason, for purposes of discussion:
Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.
I find it hard to conceive of a less dogmatic system, incidentally, than Zermelo-Frankel set theory with Axiom of Choice, so it seems odd for you to uphold reason as the antithesis of dogma.
i have no idea what you are talking about, here. but let's try to stay general, if you don't mind.
Also, I'm not sure why Socratic method earns a shout-out in the context of either liberalism or conservatism. The terminology provides the clue: it's a method, which can be appropriated to any system of belief. In the same way, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and atheists can all utilize long division. of course- and here you will find that the more conservative sects eschew the socratic method, and take their religious text as the literal, infallable, and eternal word of their "god", whereas the liberal sects debate these things until their face turns blue. qed
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2014 10:46:00 GMT -5
Hegel would say that the prevailing thesis gives rise to a competing antithesis, and would point out that no culture has a monopoly on universal truth. I afford no special dignity to a belief because some accident of history makes it widely held in some community - which is an authentically non-dogmatic position, actually.
Gurdjieff argued that so long as people have language, which is evolving and a cultural artifict, they will always argue about it's meaning. i am beginning to see why he invented his own.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 10:49:43 GMT -5
Quod non erat demonstrandum, sed ipse dixit.
What things will I find liberals debate where conservatives meekly accept dogma?
Also, if you're unfamiliar with axioms and ZFC, you're probably not bringing the best equipment to a debate about the basis of logic and reason. I appreciate you hitching a ride anyway, but unsupported assertions that things are the way you say they are, or even that they are the way most people in your view think they are, don't amount to valid arguments.
And yes, nobody has to form coherent arguments to satisfy me. We can all trade fallacious nonsense forever, or craft dazzling theses, and the end result is the same. It's unsatisfying for me, but that's not something that has to trouble anybody else. I'm just putting my view across, and learning something about your several perspectives into the bargain.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,227
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 6, 2014 10:51:01 GMT -5
Bill argues that so long as people exist, they will always argue. But I am open to the argument that I am wrong.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 10:58:17 GMT -5
We all do, dj. Language is intersubjective, and anything constructed in language is a of sand and fog.
And there is actually a benefit in this. It's worth proposing a reframing of liberalism-as-religion, precisely because people push back against that frame. It illustrates facets of both liberalism and religion through the filter of the prevailing consensus that would go unexamined otherwise. The assertion that liberalism is not dogmatic, for example, is challenged by its characterization as a religion (or, in the alternative, the assertion that religion is necessarily dogmatic is likewise challenged).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2014 10:58:43 GMT -5
Quod non erat demonstrandum, sed ipse dixit.
What things will I find liberals debate where conservatives meekly accept dogma?
you're joking, right? many, many, many things. a social example: the existence of widespread voter fraud. an economics example: the presumed impact of higher taxation on economic growth. a religious example: creation. but these things are not meekly accepted without evidence- they are VIGOROUSLY, ANGRILY DEFENDED without evidence.
Also, if you're unfamiliar with axioms and ZFC, you're probably not bringing the best equipment to a debate about the basis of logic and reason.
if you say so, bro.
I appreciate you hitching a ride anyway, but unsupported assertions that things are the way you say they are, or even that they are the way most people in your view think they are, don't amount to valid arguments.
i am sure that reason can be argued without ZFC. i am betting it probably was for a long long time. whether ZFC adds to the discussion or not is a matter for another time. if you are unwilling to wait, then i abandon the discussion. i haven't the time right now.
And yes, nobody has to form coherent arguments to satisfy me. We can all trade fallacious nonsense forever, or craft dazzling theses, and the end result is the same. It's unsatisfying for me, but that's not something that has to trouble anybody else. I'm just putting my view across, and learning something about your several perspectives into the bargain.
well, that will probably have to wait, as i have to go to work in a few minutes.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 10:59:31 GMT -5
Freedom, wrote Orwell in the character of Winston Smith, is the freedom to assert that 2 + 2 = 4.
Although there is a profound truth to that, I think real freedom depends on being able to challenge that assertion.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 11:02:21 GMT -5
So, liberals are open to the possibility that there is widespread voter fraud, and not dogmatically determined that it doesn't exist?
Liberals are open to the possibility that higher taxation impedes economic growth (latest example: the effective taxation of the graduated subsidy in Obamacare, and its CBO-scored impact on working hours), and not dogmatically determined that it doesn't?
Liberals are open to the possibility that all creatures great and small were created by an Almighty God, and not dogmatically determined that Darwin's work on the extinction of species instead provides a demonstration of the origin of species?
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, or possibly you're so sufficiently satisfied in your own mind of the dogmatic truth of one side of the debate that you don't see it as being dogmatically asserted.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 11:06:47 GMT -5
All ZFC does is underpin mathematics. It's one of a number of competing foundational axiomatic sets, established to get around the problem presented to naïve set theory by Russell's Paradox.
Reason can't be argued without reason. The reason for reason to be accepted as a basis for accepting argument is itself based on reasoned argument - it's inductive in essence, and so susceptible to Hume's Problem of Induction. This is why Popper argued that the difference between science and pseudoscience was the falsifiability, rather than the provability, of scientific hypothesis. You're right that it's not immediately germane to the question of whether liberalism is a religion, but that in fairness is hardly central to the problem of whether women encounter pay disparity in the marketplace.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2014 11:09:35 GMT -5
So, liberals are open to the possibility that there is widespread voter fraud, and not dogmatically determined that it doesn't exist?
of course!!! there is nothing i would love more than to know that the crazy-ass witchhunt that the GOP is on is not restricting voter rights, suppressing the vote, and wasting money. show me proof, and i will change my position.
Liberals are open to the possibility that higher taxation impedes economic growth ?
of course!!! if you consider obama a liberal, he has himself espoused this idea as valid on many occasions. i question it.
Liberals are open to the possibility that all creatures great and small were created by an Almighty God, and not dogmatically determined that Darwin's work on the extinction of species instead provides a demonstration of the origin of species?
again, show me definitive proof that evolution is wrong, and i will change my position.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, or possibly you're so sufficiently satisfied in your own mind of the dogmatic truth of one side of the debate that you don't see it as being dogmatically asserted.
no, i think you are mistaking dogma for the rigors of science. if you wake up every day, and the sun rises, it doesn't prove that it will rise tomorrow. however, if you know that you live in a solar system that is governed by Newtonian mechanics and astrophysics, you know that barring anything catastrophic, the sun is going to rise. that is not belief. that is empirically based fact which has to be refuted and replaced with new theory in order to displace. if you are claiming than science is dogma that is a misunderstanding of both science and dogma.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,486
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2014 11:10:14 GMT -5
All ZFC does is underpin mathematics.
i read about it for a few mins this morning, but i am out of time....
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Feb 6, 2014 11:16:04 GMT -5
So, liberals are open to the possibility that there is widespread voter fraud, and not dogmatically determined that it doesn't exist? Of course. Show me. Prove it.
Liberals are open to the possibility that higher taxation impedes economic growth (latest example: the effective taxation of the graduated subsidy in Obamacare, and its CBO-scored impact on working hours), and not dogmatically determined that it doesn't? Of course! Again, show me, prove it.
Liberals are open to the possibility that all creatures great and small were created by an Almighty God, and not dogmatically determined that Darwin's work on the extinction of species instead provides a demonstration of the origin of species? Some are, some not so much. We are not all cut from the same cloth in this particular aspect.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, or possibly you're so sufficiently satisfied in your own mind of the dogmatic truth of one side of the debate that you don't see it as being dogmatically asserted. I think my answers to the above pretty much negate your above assertion.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 6, 2014 11:19:04 GMT -5
So, liberals are open to the possibility that there is widespread voter fraud, and not dogmatically determined that it doesn't exist?
What I've seen liberals say is: Fraud on the part of the individual voter is not a major issue. Fraud on the part of partisan political organizations is the problem. That does not equate to: "It doesn't exist".
Liberals are open to the possibility that higher taxation impedes economic growth (latest example: the effective taxation of the graduated subsidy in Obamacare, and its CBO-scored impact on working hours), and not dogmatically determined that it doesn't?
What I've seen liberals say is: Higher taxation is one thing that impedes economic growth, but not the only thing that impedes economic growth and, possibly, not the main thing that impedes economic growth.
Liberals are open to the possibility that all creatures great and small were created by an Almighty God, and not dogmatically determined that Darwin's work on the extinction of species instead provides a demonstration of the origin of species?
We have quite a few liberal believers in God right here on this message board. I know others among my neighbors, family, and friends.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, or possibly you're so sufficiently satisfied in your own mind of the dogmatic truth of one side of the debate that you don't see it as being dogmatically asserted.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 11:25:42 GMT -5
No, I'm a student of the history and philosophy of science.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
All three of your counterexamples involved confirmation bias: you disregard any evidence that doesn't support the position you consider arrived at by reasoned dependence on firm evidence to the contrary. What you would consider 'proof' sufficient to alter your opinion will shift as new 'proof' is volunteered. That's not having a pop at you, it's acknowledging you to the community of rational self-interested sentient beings - Kant's "Kingdom of Ends."
If one modifies the social question of "widespread voter fraud" to the more pertinent "lack of integrity in voter registration" - which removes the emotive question of intent, but retains the overarching state interest in preserving the integrity of the vote - do liberals openly debate that voter registration is badly flawed, to the extent of justifying a lack of confidence from voters in the integrity of the system?
www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 11:38:00 GMT -5
Handily, this paragraph included an example. I showed it to you. Are you convinced? No.
heartland.org/sites/default/files/gwartneylawsonsocialphilosophyandpolicy.pdf
This is evidence for the proposition that higher taxation impedes economic growth. Dj has already suggested that conservatives support this position "without evidence." I have high confidence that you will continue to oppose it in the face of this evidence. What you will do is give the evidence lesser weight than conflicting evidence like this:
www.epi.org/publication/raising-income-taxes/
I express skepticism that you will do so based on a considered evaluation of the academic merits of the literature on both sides of the debate; and, again, that's not a personal dig, that's just an assumption that you operate like a human being.
|
|