What is faith? Really?

[Seth]

Yeh, the good/bad bit sounds good, but it's entirely untrue.

In any case, people aren't either good or bad. They are much more complicated than that.


What bugs me about faith is that, even if people haven't got it, they often still try to inflict it on their kids. Or stand by, while the religious twats try to do it for them.
I really respect parents who leave it to their kids. My sister is one of the few true believers I know, but I heard her laughing telling my other sister that her son doesn't believe in god, but does believe in Santa Clause.

Perhaps they do it because they find great value in the memes of their faith that they wish to pass on to their children. Just because you don't like the memes doesn't mean they are inherently bad or evil, it usually means that you are ignorant about the faith and how it fits into people's lives. Nobody forces them to have faith here in the US. You either have it or you don't, and if you do then you must find some value in it. Who the fuck are you to tell someone else what the value of their faith is to them? Don't be an arrogant prick and mind your own business.

There's nothing special or uniquely virtuous about the values declared under the faith banner, unless you think obeying a religious authority is a virtue I guess.

Well, it seems that some 80 percent of the population of the planet agree that obeying a religious authority is a virtue. If you are a supporter of democracy, then you must also be consistent and submit to majority rule when it comes to obeying religious authority don't you think?

Nope, because your false dichotomy conflates obeying a religious authority with democracy. Nor did you address the point: that obeying an authority is not virtue-bestowing in and of itself.

In your opinion perhaps...

The point of my dichotomous statement is that if obedience to religious authority is mandated through democratic processes, then supporters of democracy are compelled to quit their bitching and genuflect because, well, majority rules in a democracy, which can certainly vote to submit to individual authority as a condition of membership in the community, which is precisely what Catholics do.

Nice try at weaseling out of your moral dilemma.

[Svartalf]

Religion comes under freedom of conscience and no process that can be truthfully called democratic can impose one to those as would not believe.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeh, the good/bad bit sounds good, but it's entirely untrue.

In any case, people aren't either good or bad. They are much more complicated than that.


What bugs me about faith is that, even if people haven't got it, they often still try to inflict it on their kids. Or stand by, while the religious twats try to do it for them.
I really respect parents who leave it to their kids. My sister is one of the few true believers I know, but I heard her laughing telling my other sister that her son doesn't believe in god, but does believe in Santa Clause.

Perhaps they do it because they find great value in the memes of their faith that they wish to pass on to their children. Just because you don't like the memes doesn't mean they are inherently bad or evil, it usually means that you are ignorant about the faith and how it fits into people's lives. Nobody forces them to have faith here in the US. You either have it or you don't, and if you do then you must find some value in it. Who the fuck are you to tell someone else what the value of their faith is to them? Don't be an arrogant prick and mind your own business.

There's nothing special or uniquely virtuous about the values declared under the faith banner, unless you think obeying a religious authority is a virtue I guess.

Well, it seems that some 80 percent of the population of the planet agree that obeying a religious authority is a virtue. If you are a supporter of democracy, then you must also be consistent and submit to majority rule when it comes to obeying religious authority don't you think?

Nope, because your false dichotomy conflates obeying a religious authority with democracy. Nor did you address the point: that obeying an authority is not virtue-bestowing in and of itself.

In your opinion perhaps...

The point of my dichotomous statement is that if obedience to religious authority is mandated through democratic processes, then supporters of democracy are compelled to quit their bitching and genuflect because, well, majority rules in a democracy, which can certainly vote to submit to individual authority as a condition of membership in the community, which is precisely what Catholics do.

Nice try at weaseling out of your moral dilemma.

Weaseling? My moral dilemma?

OK, as you've got nothing better to offer, and I've got nothing better to do…

So if we all vote to be oppressed slaves then being in a state of slavery becomes democratically mandated, justifiable, munificent, or whatever, and this would then oblige everyone to obey a religious authority - but i) we'd be living in a constitutional theocracy (for as long as we were prepared to vote it), ii) under such a regime the notion of religious and personal freedoms would just not apply, even though iii) in a democracy opposing and discenting views would still be permissible regardless of the prevailing social-political status quo, and iv) while this novel and diverting scenario clearly casts obligatory obedience to a religious authority as a virtue in and of itself, it says absolutely nothing about the nature and value of the Faith which you are so keen to promote and defend here beyond, that is, implying that a socially pervaw religion would basically be good for people whether they liked it or not.

Edit XC: Fixed quotings.

[Seth]

Weaseling? My moral dilemma?

OK, as you've got nothing better to offer, and I've got nothing better to do…

So if we all vote to be oppressed slaves then being in a state of slavery becomes democratically mandated, justifiable, munificent, or whatever, and this would then oblige everyone to obey a religious authority - but i) we'd be living in a constitutional theocracy (for as long as we were prepared to vote it), ii) under such a regime the notion of religious and personal freedoms would just not apply, even though iii) in a democracy opposing and discenting views would still be permissible regardless of the prevailing social-political status quo, and iv) while this novel and diverting scenario clearly casts obligatory obedience to a religious authority as a virtue in and of itself, it says absolutely nothing about the nature and value of the Faith which you are so keen to promote and defend here beyond, that is, implying that a socially pervaw religion would basically be good for people whether they liked it or not.

i) Yes.
ii) Indeed.
iii) Where did you get the silly notion that "opposing and discenting (sic) views" would be permissible? In a democracy, if the majority says "keep your stinking pie-hole shut and obey the majority" then you'd darned well better do just that. This is a perfect example of why democracy is a Very Bad Thing.
iv) Of course it would, in a democracy, because as we see in the Middle East, bucking the socially pervasive religion is extremely bad for people, who tend to get their heads and hands chopped off and suchlike.

[Brian Peacock]

Weaseling? My moral dilemma?

OK, as you've got nothing better to offer, and I've got nothing better to do…

So if we all vote to be oppressed slaves then being in a state of slavery becomes democratically mandated, justifiable, munificent, or whatever, and this would then oblige everyone to obey a religious authority - but i) we'd be living in a constitutional theocracy (for as long as we were prepared to vote it), ii) under such a regime the notion of religious and personal freedoms would just not apply, even though iii) in a democracy opposing and discenting views would still be permissible regardless of the prevailing social-political status quo, and iv) while this novel and diverting scenario clearly casts obligatory obedience to a religious authority as a virtue in and of itself, it says absolutely nothing about the nature and value of the Faith which you are so keen to promote and defend here beyond, that is, implying that a socially pervasive religion would basically be good for people whether they liked it or not.

i) Yes.
ii) Indeed.
iii) Where did you get the silly notion that "opposing and discenting (sic) views" would be permissible? In a democracy, if the majority says "keep your stinking pie-hole shut and obey the majority" then you'd darned well better do just that. This is a perfect example of why democracy is a Very Bad Thing.

If 'we, the people' aren't free to have their say then it ain't democratic. But this only establishes that that which we both agree is essentially a freedom denying theocracy (i & ii) cannot be a democracy.

iv) Of course it would, in a democracy, because as we see in the Middle East, bucking the socially pervasive religion is extremely bad for people, who tend to get their heads and hands chopped off and suchlike.

You are drawing the conclusion that a socially pervasive religion (in what we have established is a theocracy, not a democracy) would be a good thing because not liking it would be a bad thing. I get that. But, of course, this does not say anything about, nor make, obligatory obedience to a (self-appointed) authority a virtue in and of itself, it just makes obedience a practical, self-preserving response to theocratic tyranny. And in the meantime, how does this whimisical screed relate to the nature and value of Faith that you are so keen to promote and defend?

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

In a democracy, if the majority says "keep your stinking pie-hole shut and obey the majority" then you'd darned well better do just that.

What utter and complete nonsense. Western democracies operate within a framework of constraints, whether it be constitutional or common law. In working democracies, this has always served as a buffer against the imposition of dangerous authoritarian policies, even from a government that has been voted for by a majority.

[Brian Peacock]

Seth's reading of democracy is an irrelevant distraction here anyway Jim. What's he actually suggesting? That because democracy has flaws then a social-political system founded in religious faith and observance is somehow a reasonable, more pragmatic alternative? Are we to take it that faith has intrinsic value just because it has inherent values that the faithful consider worthy, noble and virtuous - such as codified and (for them) obligatory moral and social precepts - or that in conforming to religious principles we somehow elevate our existence automatically or make ourselves more free individuals by, in effect, removing our ability to act as free agents in a free society?

The thing with theocrats is that they always say that theocracy is the most worthy, noble and virtuous state for a society - but of course that state is can only ever be actualised in relation to the religious precepts of the theocrats themselves. Such a 'principle' is wholly self-serving. Faith is similarly lauded by the religious as the most worthy, noble and virtuous state any individual can inhabit, but again this state can only be authorised by the proper (self-appointed) religious authority. Again, this only self-serves the interests of the religious authority.

Faith then is not so much a personal virtue as it is a mechanism for social control, a mechanim by which people are convinced or coerced into accepting that being a good and proper person is absolutely conditional on the acceptance of the supreme authority of a particular religious body.

[Seth]

Weaseling? My moral dilemma?

OK, as you've got nothing better to offer, and I've got nothing better to do…

So if we all vote to be oppressed slaves then being in a state of slavery becomes democratically mandated, justifiable, munificent, or whatever, and this would then oblige everyone to obey a religious authority - but i) we'd be living in a constitutional theocracy (for as long as we were prepared to vote it), ii) under such a regime the notion of religious and personal freedoms would just not apply, even though iii) in a democracy opposing and discenting views would still be permissible regardless of the prevailing social-political status quo, and iv) while this novel and diverting scenario clearly casts obligatory obedience to a religious authority as a virtue in and of itself, it says absolutely nothing about the nature and value of the Faith which you are so keen to promote and defend here beyond, that is, implying that a socially pervasive religion would basically be good for people whether they liked it or not.

i) Yes.
ii) Indeed.
iii) Where did you get the silly notion that "opposing and discenting (sic) views" would be permissible? In a democracy, if the majority says "keep your stinking pie-hole shut and obey the majority" then you'd darned well better do just that. This is a perfect example of why democracy is a Very Bad Thing.

If 'we, the people' aren't free to have their say then it ain't democratic. But this only establishes that that which we both agree is essentially a freedom denying theocracy (i & ii) cannot be a democracy.

iv) Of course it would, in a democracy, because as we see in the Middle East, bucking the socially pervasive religion is extremely bad for people, who tend to get their heads and hands chopped off and suchlike.

You are drawing the conclusion that a socially pervasive religion (in what we have established is a theocracy, not a democracy) would be a good thing because not liking it would be a bad thing. I get that. But, of course, this does not say anything about, nor make, obligatory obedience to a (self-appointed) authority a virtue in and of itself, it just makes obedience a practical, self-preserving response to theocratic tyranny. And in the meantime, how does this whimisical screed relate to the nature and value of Faith that you are so keen to promote and defend?

That depends on how you define "virtue" I suppose. But remember we're not talking about a "self appointed" authority, we are discussing an authority appointed by the democratic decisions of the community.

And I'm not promoting or defending any particular faith, I'm debunking the notion that democracy is a good thing, because it isn't.

[Brian Peacock]

Then you're talking to yourself, and for your own amusement alone I fear. More so if you're going to continue to confuse the self-appointed authorities of religion with the democratically elected authority of a government. Your silly straw man scenario, about a democratically elected theocracy (and which you yourself agree would result in the removal of individual and religious freedoms), is simply specious Seth. Spectacularly so.