Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

[5mn_Major]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Ah yes, Christian values are exactly what pushed Einstein, Max Born, Oppenheimer, Haber, and any number of Jewish scientists who have completely revolutionized our scientific knowlege over the years, they've all been driven by their Christian values.

Doesn't appear that I was clear.

Most progress improves mankinds condition - scientific, technological, economic, and social. Scientific improvements were not specifically driven by Christian values IMO, neither were technological, nor economic. On the other hand, western social change from medieval times was heavily influenced by Christianity. As discussed on here many times, examples include child labor, slavery, womens suffrage, healthcare, societal assistance, charity (9 of the top 10 US charitable organizations are Christian or have Christian roots)...Christianity has shaped what society looks like today. Scientific, technological and economic change in my mind was mostly independent of Christianity. Although having such a dynamic resulting society has probably helped foster other sorts of change and set the course for other societies.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

There is a vibrant, productive history of doubt that is exactly as old as religious history (Jennifer Michael Hecht's wonderful book is a great introduction for doubters and believers alike), and it as much a driver of science and technology as religion. Religions come and go and the doctrine of a given religion waxes and wanes between accepting science and violently attacking it. During those times when religion hides under the covers, innovation and research proceed (carefully, under the threat of theological terrorism) outside of it; when religion is confident in its place and comfortable with science as tying up all the annoying and inconsequential details of the material world, believers make enormous contributions to science.

The problem is not religion, per se, but the cyclical attempts by authoritarians in religious garb to bring all human experience under their heel. There's always a mob of fanatics looking to murder Hypatia. When they're in charge religion is useless to the advancement of knowledge. When they're safely locked away in the loony bin the energy and sincerity of religious conviction are huge assets in the search for truth.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Religions come and go and the doctrine of a given religion waxes and wanes ....The problem is not religion, per se, but the cyclical attempts by authoritarians in religious garb to bring all human experience under their heel.

My terminology would be more along the lines of "religion" is wonderful and "doctrine" is the problem.

Does God exist? What difference does it make, really....would we really behave any differently toward our fellow humans one way or the other?

"religion" would say no, it doesn't really matter whether God "exists" or not: every "religion" has a version of the Golden Rule.

"Doctrine" is where arguments about God's existence or lack thereof reside.



Secular "doctrine" can be just as tyrannical as "doctrine" in the name of religion. There are fanatics of all stripes.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

I'm not a big fan of a lot that the Catholic Church has done in the distant past, as you may have noticed, so no argument that they did a lot of stifling in many ways. That said, there's a lot more to Christianity and Christian history than what a bunch of popes have done. You read the writings of folks like Newton, Pascal, etc. and they viewed their faith as integral to their scientific endeavors. You have a guy like Boyle who said that he felt his scientific efforts glorified God.

Yes, their religious beliefs were important to them, personally, but I fail to grasp exactly which term of F = Ma accounts for divine intervention (or even interest) in the universe.

Nearly every single great Western composer produced Christian music, but is that because God inspired their music, or is it because the Church happened to be the organization that paid the best during the "period of great discovery" in western music (1650-1850), so the best composers gravitated that way?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

There is a vibrant, productive history of doubt that is exactly as old as religious history (Jennifer Michael Hecht's wonderful book is a great introduction for doubters and believers alike), and it as much a driver of science and technology as religion. Religions come and go and the doctrine of a given religion waxes and wanes between accepting science and violently attacking it. During those times when religion hides under the covers, innovation and research proceed (carefully, under the threat of theological terrorism) outside of it; when religion is confident in its place and comfortable with science as tying up all the annoying and inconsequential details of the material world, believers make enormous contributions to science.

Faith either way has been largely independent of breakthrough scientific innovation. Read the book the history of science to get that. But faith has had a big hand in social innovation.

The problem is not religion, per se, but the cyclical attempts by authoritarians in religious garb to bring all human experience under their heel. There's always a mob of fanatics looking to murder Hypatia. When they're in charge religion is useless to the advancement of knowledge. When they're safely locked away in the loony bin the energy and sincerity of religious conviction are huge assets in the search for truth.

Pretty much. Extremists have always found a home...nationalism, racism, economics, and yes Christianity. One has to understand the problem in order to have a chance at finding solutions to our problems.

My terminology would be more along the lines of "religion" is wonderful and "doctrine" is the problem.

Does God exist? What difference does it make, really....would we really behave any differently toward our fellow humans one way or the other?

Largely agree. But again, the fact that there were believers has resulted in some pretty amazing social/societal advances. And regardless of Papal ancient history, that makes Christianity a big win.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Reminds me of that famous New Yorker cartoon, that has a map: NYC / Hudson River / San Francisco.

San Francisco is not in that cartoon, but Texas and Nebraska are. It wasn't a comment on Flyover country at all. The jokes, in order of importance:

(1) Only NYC matters

(2) In fact, only Manhattan matters

(3) Fuck Europe

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Yes, their religious beliefs were important to them, personally, but I fail to grasp exactly which term of F = Ma accounts for divine intervention (or even interest) in the universe.

Nearly every single great Western composer produced Christian music, but is that because God inspired their music, or is it because the Church happened to be the organization that paid the best during the "period of great discovery" in western music (1650-1850), so the best composers gravitated that way?

I haven't seen any evidence that someone like a Boyle, Bacon, Pascal, etc. only did what they did because the Catholic Church paid them. If you can point to any examples, I'm happy to take a look at them. The situation as to why people do what they do of course varied with each person, as situations always do. But, our beliefs, etc. are important in inspiring us in what we do, whether in our employment, family life, or whatever. To pretend they are off in a box somewhere, separate from what we do in life is simply not reflective of how human beings work.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

But faith has had a big hand in social innovation.

Cause and effect are reversed. Social attitudes evolve and that changes religious tenets. In 18th century America the Bible was used to prop up racism, in the 19th century religious groups attacked slavery. The religion changed to reflect new social attitudes. The same thing happened in the mid-20th century with Christian attitudes towards Judaism (eventually formally institutionalized in Catholic dogma) and is now happening with gays and women.

Human institutions adapt or die. That's why the eternal project of fundamentalism is silly: the original configuration was a product of its time. That time is gone. Shellfish and mixed fabrics are fine now.

Religions are very, very useful in promulgating changed attitudes (once they adapt to them) because they literally don't take no for an answer. Political arguments can be countered with pragmatic and utilitarian rebuttals: "ending slavery (or child labor, or air pollution, or fossil fuels) will wreck the economy." The feature (and the bug) of religious arguments is they say: "nothing justifies this practice."

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

The feature (and the bug) of religious arguments is they say: "nothing justifies this practice."

Case in point: the US abolitionist movement (which among the more extreme adherents even included domestic terrorism...hmm, a mixed bag here?)

or Martin Luther King Jr and the civil rights movement (mostly non-violent by the practitioners, which helped turn public opinion against segretation supporters when THEY beat up the marchers. Very effective).

Or John Paul II and the fall of Communism in eastern Europe (again, quite effective)

 

[Kepler]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

I haven't seen any evidence that someone like a Boyle, Bacon, Pascal, etc. only did what they did because the Catholic Church paid them. If you can point to any examples, I'm happy to take a look at them. The situation as to why people do what they do of course varied with each person, as situations always do. But, our beliefs, etc. are important in inspiring us in what we do, whether in our employment, family life, or whatever. To pretend they are off in a box somewhere, separate from what we do in life is simply not reflective of how human beings work.

Absolutely true. Particularly during the period from about 600 to 1600, it makes no sense to talk about religious values and personal identity and motivation as separate. The worldview "horizon" of the Medieval and even Renaissance and Reformation Christian was bounded inside religion. There was no "outside."

 

[Kepler]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Case in point: the US abolitionist movement (which among the more extreme adherents even included domestic terrorism...hmm, a mixed bag here?)

or Martin Luther King Jr and the civil rights movement (mostly non-violent by the practitioners, which helped turn public opinion against segretation supporters when THEY beat up the marchers. Very effective).

Or John Paul II and the fall of Communism in eastern Europe (again, quite effective)

The other one is abortion. It's a really interesting case since (1) it's not finished yet, (2) it's being opposed by equal but opposite moral values (the equality of women and their sovereignty over their bodies) which are distinctly not religious, and (3) historically it's a fairly new conflict, since religion viewed abortion as "a resumption of natural cycles" until the issue became politicized around 1900. The latter makes it very much like the opposition to slavery, which was A-OK with religion for almost its entire history. It should also give women's rights supporters pause since it proves that just because the church flip-flops doesn't mean it won't win.

If I had to put money on it, I'd say the natural compromise point where religion rejoins secular social attitudes will be an acceptance of contraception and a prohibition of abortion, once contraceptives become full-proof and the impact on privileged women is moot. It won't be the first time a technological advance changes both a social and a religious attitude. Poor women will get the shaft when their wealthier sisters turn on them since in a materialist culture money creates morality.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

I haven't seen any evidence that someone like a Boyle, Bacon, Pascal, etc. only did what they did because the Catholic Church paid them. If you can point to any examples, I'm happy to take a look at them. The situation as to why people do what they do of course varied with each person, as situations always do. But, our beliefs, etc. are important in inspiring us in what we do, whether in our employment, family life, or whatever. To pretend they are off in a box somewhere, separate from what we do in life is simply not reflective of how human beings work.

The music was just an example of why even something that appears OVERTLY religious in content (Christian music, in this case) may have had a much more mundane inspiration (I will get paid). Creation of scientific knowledge is not only not overtly religious, it's not even remotely religious in its content, so it seems to me to be very reasonable to suspect that their faith was not "integral" to their scientific endeavors. I see nothing in any of Newton's work that I'm familiar with (as a mechanical engineer who has read Principia) that is "integrally" tied up with religion - even if Christianity fades, classical mechanics will remain. One does not depend upon the other.

Would Newton really have been less curious about the world or less capable of putting it all together if he had grown up as an atheist? That is effectively what you are asserting, but I strongly doubt you have any concrete reason to believe it.

 

[joecct]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Kepler

IIRC the original thought behind contraception was to keep the lower classes from breeding.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

The music was just an example of why even something that appears OVERTLY religious in content (Christian music, in this case) may have had a much more mundane inspiration (I will get paid). Creation of scientific knowledge is not only not overtly religious, it's not even remotely religious in its content, so it seems to me to be very reasonable to suspect that their faith was not "integral" to their scientific endeavors. I see nothing in any of Newton's work that I'm familiar with (as a mechanical engineer who has read Principia) that is "integrally" tied up with religion - even if Christianity fades, classical mechanics will remain. One does not depend upon the other.

Would Newton really have been less curious about the world or less capable of putting it all together if he had grown up as an atheist? That is effectively what you are asserting, but I strongly doubt you have any concrete reason to believe it.

Newton wasn't an atheist, so any speculation is just that, sheer speculation that neither of us can prove. His religious writings aren't nearly as well known obviously, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or were not a big part of his life.

Something doesn't have to be overtly or integrally tied into something else to have an influence. You're being ridiculously simplistic. Maybe you live in a world devoid of motivation and hope that help people pursue things in their life?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Kepler

IIRC the original thought behind contraception was to keep the lower classes from breeding.

Contraception is as old as humanity; we were just really bad at it. Some 19th century social movements got racism, class conflict, women's rights, and eugenics all tangled up, but they were neither the first nor the most important advocates of contraception. It's kind of like arguing that because the Transcendentalists founded Brook Farm that Unitarians are just in it for the kinky sex.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Newton wasn't an atheist, so any speculation is just that, sheer speculation that neither of us can prove. His religious writings aren't nearly as well known obviously, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or were not a big part of his life.

My understanding is that Newton was deeply religious, as were many of the leading lights of Brit science in the 17th and 18th century. Meanwhile, over in France explicitly anti-religious men were making the ground-breaking discoveries. Religious obsession can stifle creativity in a second-rate mind, but so can commerce or politics. Horniness doesn't seem to, oddly enough -- as a very general rule, the more curious the brain, the more wide-ranging its tactile experiments. Either that or everyone's always been a horndog and intellectuals were the only ones who didn't have to fake it.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Cause and effect are reversed. Social attitudes evolve and that changes religious tenets. In 18th century America the Bible was used to prop up racism, in the 19th century religious groups attacked slavery. The religion changed to reflect new social attitudes. The same thing happened in the mid-20th century with Christian attitudes towards Judaism (eventually formally institutionalized in Catholic dogma) and is now happening with gays and women.

Abolition of slavery in the British Empire was the direct result of the acts of 1807 and 1833. The committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade and the Anti Savery Society drove the respective movements. The organizations were founded by an evangelical William Wilberforce and consisted of an alliance between Protestants and Quakers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_of_1807
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

Here's a pretty indepth piece that shows the real impact (not just individuals saying its why they kept a slave) that Christians had on abolitionism in the US...by the National Humanitarian Center which has absolutely nothing to do with religion and has associations with Harvard and Princeton.

The cause of immediate emancipation, as the abolitionists came to define it, had a different germ of inspiration from those Enlightenment ideals that Jefferson had articulated: the rise of a fervent religious reawakening just as the new Republic was being created.

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/amabrel.htm

If you'd like to discuss...you can start by addressing the meat of this work.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

I assumed you were past the 'Anne Coutler says its true so it must be true' rhetoric. In other words, just because an individual slave owner said 'they were just following the Bible' doesn't mean Christianity had any real impact on the continuation of slavery whatsoever. Beyond that, everything youre posting is a fluffy point of view. Sorry.

What if that individual slave owner happened to be setting policy for a major state fighting to preserve slavery?

"We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."

Jefferson Davis

Let me guess: no TRUE Christian would ever have argued in favor of slavery....

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Every time I read this thread title I can't help but think of the words:
Larry
Craig
Wide
Very wide

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

What if that individual slave owner happened to be setting policy for a major state fighting to preserve slavery?

"We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."

Jefferson Davis

I've been waiting for the 'Hitler was a Christian so Christianity is bad' argument. How much of a Christian was Jefferson Davis? Not much as far as wiki is concerned...no mention of Christianity.

Anti slavery organizations that fed abolition around the world were inherently Christian. On the other hand, anyone who believes that the Confederacy pushed for slavery or fought the civil war because of the Bible knows nothing of history.

Time to be honest...your post is just a smoke screen as you are not capable of addressing any of my points. Not one.