Big Think

Mark Cerenzia on March 25, 2008, 5:15 PM

Coyote’s response:
“God is the name we give to the ideas we create to inspire us to raise our eyes up from the mud, to stand tall and reach out to ideas larger than our minds can hold.”

Don’t you think the idea of “God” would have arisen from reflecting on our existence rather than a need to “raise our eyes up from the mud”? That is, to answer questions like “why are we here, why is there something rather than nothing” or, for more primitive societies, to fill in the gaps of science. This seems far more probable.
And how can God be an idea our mind can’t hold when we actually have the idea? It sounds silly to say that we create ideas inspiring us to reach for ideas “larger than our minds can hold.” Does this seriously make any sense? Can it be substantiated at all?

Mark Cerenzia on March 25, 2008, 5:16 PM

PS Evangelicals do anything but contemplate.

Musycks on March 25, 2008, 7:38 PM

I agree he’s not clear about what he’s trying to get at… but most people who sift ideas through the filter of their faith struggle to make sense….
and I agree ‘God’ in all it’s variants is a human mind construct…. thereby the circles we continually dance in on these pages…. but there’s meaning in the dance I think.

Mark Cerenzia on March 25, 2008, 10:44 PM

To musycks:

Just because God could be a human construct, it doesn’t follow that there is no God. And the variants you see among the many do not remain among learned circles as they agree on much more than people think. I would not place Jim Wallis among these circles.

My impression from your other posts is that you’re an atheist, which is perfectly fine, but what meaning could there possibly be in this “circular dance” that could coexist with your worldview?

Musycks on March 26, 2008, 12:22 AM

cerenziam,
atheist? proudly so. Do I think God is anything ‘outside’ of man? no. Do I think men know all there is to know? no.
and I would think anyone who agreed God was purely a human construct would be hard pressed to agree it existed independantly of that construct? so to me it does follow… no matter how esoterically you define your God.

Mary Coyote on March 26, 2008, 2:10 AM

cerenziam:
you misunderstand what I mean by ‘mud.’ ‘reflecting on our existence’ INDEED IS ‘raising our eyes up from the mud.’

‘Questions like: why are we here, why is there something rather than nothing’ is NOT MUD.

Mud is eating, drinking, f**king, killing, seeking pleasure, and doing what is necessary to survive and thrive and pass on one’s genetic material.

Mark Cerenzia on March 26, 2008, 2:37 AM

To Coyote:

I see what you mean by it. I hope I am not making an unjustified assumption, but your views seem atheistic/agnostic. Given your views, why are eating, drinking, f**king, killing considered mud and asking introspective questions not? They seem equal to me – they’re all acts.

To musycks:

“and I would think anyone who agreed God was purely a human construct would be hard pressed to agree it existed independantly of that construct? so to me it does follow”

If I were to conceive of a dog without having proved its existence, by your logic, it follows dogs don’t exist since it’s my construct. It’s obvious it doesn’t follow. A more realistic example would be physicists who first conceive of things in the universe through reason before they prove they are there, e.g., black holes.

And as to definitions of God, they aren’t so esoteric or even different. I would argue every definition of God at least posits him as the first cause/creator of the universe. This definition would actually fit with your atheistic beliefs given Spinoza’s definition, for instance, where God is Nature, which again isn’t so esoteric but actually just a more sophisticated pantheism.

Mary Coyote on March 26, 2008, 3:24 PM

Two of my views on god

What Are Your Definitions of God? Coyote is the god who walks this planet
http://www.bigthink.com/faith-beliefs/9101

The Sun is our father in heaven.
http://www.bigthink.com/faith-beliefs/9020

Mark Cerenzia on March 26, 2008, 3:54 PM

Coyote:

Sorry for my supposition then. I thought, and still think, you were being facetious with those alternatives when I glanced over them before, especially given your comment that God is an idea we create. Either way, neither answers my question: why are certain acts considered mud and others not? The sun god, coyote, and the old creator do not seem to justify the distinction, so how do you?

Mary Coyote on March 26, 2008, 5:52 PM

Cerenziam:
Actually I thought your question was facetious; I could not comprehend that you would not see a difference between contemplating god and day to day activities such as eating and defecating.

As to my ideas of god: I am coyote’s solicitor, and as Coyote has a reputation as trickster, it may be necessary to watch both sides of an argument (and everything in between) rather than attempt to pin me to a black or white answer.

In fact I personally reject black/white dichotomies and all shades of gray. In additive color theory, Black is the absence of all color and White is the presence of all color. Therefore I prefer to see the world as the presence of all possible colors and color combinations. REASON, then, is the sorting of these colors to find a way to understand our world, rather than ignoring or censuring them and attempting to measure our universe with such crude tools as ALL-color or NONE-color.

So, again: MUD is black/white, while contemplation of god and the universe is colorful.

Mark Cerenzia on March 26, 2008, 7:49 PM

Coyote:

Then enlighten me: WHY are certain acts mud and others not. Your just inclined to think one act is better than the other or have been lead to believe so by your upbringing. But please tell me why there is a difference between acts – I don’t yet understand.

Mark Cerenzia on March 26, 2008, 8:40 PM

And just to put it in your terms: why should we avoid black and white and pursue the colorful? Is there any good reason why we should?

Musycks on March 26, 2008, 11:48 PM

Dear Coyote,
You may conceive of a dog.. but it will conform with what your brain can extrapolate from the information you’ve acquired methinks?
Notice how all those turgid ancient texts like the bible don’t have one single idea in them that could have come from outside a man’s capacity to imagine?
Black holes were postulated by the logic of absence of matter, so they didn’t start from a position of ‘nothing’ and got lucky, it was hard analysis and human brainwork..
Carl Sagan I think said we were all made of ‘star stuff’… it’s a nice thought.. whatever it means.

Mark Cerenzia on March 27, 2008, 12:17 AM

Dear musycks:
I suspect this last post was meant for me, and not coyote.

By my examples, I was only saying that if God really was a human construct, it wouldn’t necessarily follow that God would still not exist, as you claimed.
And just as a physicist may conceive of black holes with only certain observable facts, mathematical knowledge, etc., a philosopher can deduce or infer a first cause/creator (God) through metaphysical reasoning, logic, etc. I think you would be shocked how persuasive and logical many of these reasonings are. Even Bertrand Russell said Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God is sound – he said it’s easier to say the conclusion is ‘no good’ than to actually find something wrong with it.
There is a cheap side to religion, which you, others, and myself all have problems with. But I think if you were to dig deeper, you would find a much more reasonable and intellectually satisfying assessment of the world (namely, in certain christian intellectual traditions).

Mary Coyote on March 27, 2008, 12:18 AM

sorry cerenziam; i don’t respond well to quizzing. If you have an argument to make, please do, but consider refraining from baggering. Coyote, not Bagger.

Mark Cerenzia on March 27, 2008, 12:22 AM

My question has been quite simple: What is your justification for yourself and for others to choose certain acts over others?
If you don’t or can’t answer this question, far be it from me to force you to respond.

Mary Coyote on March 27, 2008, 1:45 AM

Badger and Fox.

What is your justification for suggesting otherwise?

Musycks on March 27, 2008, 2:11 AM

Sorry CZiam, it was you after all… trying my juggling act but I guess I dropped a ball or 2!
and maybe the more intelligent Xtians share some sound ideas with other great philosophers, but first cause is always the elephant in the room. I struggle with the vastness of the Universe and the small amount we’ve gleaned so far, to not think generations from now, we’ll be the equivalents of neanderthals? We’ve come a long way in some ways, and yet we continue to crash into the limits of our understanding?.. let’s continue to stimulate the synapses and recognise a good thought or action where we see it, and equally challenge the stupid ones.

Mary Coyote on March 27, 2008, 2:11 AM

The Way-We-Live is more important than What-We-Believe.



Taking Christ out of Christianity:
Avant garde pastor teaches a new Christianity where the-way-you-live is more important than beliefs.

Vosper says there’s been virtually a consensus among scholars for the past 30 years that the Bible is not some DIVINE EMANATION; it is not The Authoritative Word of God For All Time.

It is a HUMAN PROJECT filled with contradictions and the conflicting world-views and respective political perspectives of its authors.

And yet, she says, the liberal Christian churches, including her own, won’t acknowledge to the congregation that it is a human project, that it’s wrong in parts and that in the 21st century it’s no more useful as a spiritual and religious guide than a number of other books.

She says now that the work of biblical scholars has become publicly accessible, the churches and their clergy are caught living a lie that few people will buy much longer.
Posted By: MICHAEL VALPY

link to:
http://www.bigthink.com/faith-beliefs/9057

Musycks on March 27, 2008, 2:49 AM

Yep, I have seen that post… it’s good.
Now…. what about my Joni question?!

Mary Coyote on March 27, 2008, 2:20 PM

musycks;
I could not find the Joni post below and do not remember the question it included. Sorry. But your post did make me check my MP3’s for a copy of the song and listened to it. Also Googled Joni Mitchell and watched her on U-tube and read the lyrics.

Thank you for pointing that song out to me. The lyrics are a wonderful accounting of her Coyote experiences: on a night her traveling band rolls into a small town they see a farm house burning and she bumps into Coyote and he won’t take No!….

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSZcK48cTiU
www.lyricsdepot.com/joni-mitchell/coyote.html

Musycks on March 27, 2008, 8:55 PM

Ahh, to turn another person onto a Joni song, that for me is a mystical experience..
I’m glad you liked it.
keep howling!

Mark Cerenzia on March 28, 2008, 9:41 PM

musycks:

I agree…but what if we are the “last man”?

Coyote: “Badger and Fox…What is your justification for suggesting otherwise?”

I thought it was coyote all this time? Either way, “Badger and Fox” is not an answer to why you act one way and not another, but if these two animals somehow give you a reason for doing so, then that’s what I want to know.

And if that avant guard pastor’s elimination of Christ from Christianity also eliminates transcendence, then that’s just dumb – it would just simply be humanism of some kind, which ultimately will drown in the abyss of nihilism.

Musycks on March 30, 2008, 8:38 PM

Cz,
Not sure humanism is on a course pre-set for nihilism? I suppose I’m broadly humanist, and I long for the poetic and the ‘trancendant’, or the mystical.. I just fail to see how a supernatural explanation is essential for it.. it’s within us, not outside.

Most Xtians I know now are not too fussed about a lot of stuff that was holy writ only a couple of generations ago? they don’t necessarily take the miracles as literal, or the blessed assumption, or the virgin birth, or even the ressurection! it’s all metaphor and allegory for them now… ironically putting them vaguely in line with the type of Xtian thought that lost out to the Pauline view, the Gnostics… they held JC was on about the ‘inner-light’.. very eastern concept.
These modern Xtian avant garde people would be heretics compared to most of the Xtians that have ever lived..

So maybe some define the inner light as God or a soul or a special connection with every other life force? either way I don’t think it has much to do with what a group of wandering Jews encountered in the desert a couple of thousand years ago.

Evidence for ‘God’ = none
Evidence of a search for meaning = loads!

Mark Cerenzia on March 31, 2008, 10:02 PM

I just fail to see where humanism gets it’s justification for any of its proclamations/ideas. Broadly, I see any atheistic worldview – humanism, naturalism, materialism, etc. (all pretty much the same) – as simply a cloak for nihilism. You know who was a avowed humanist? Nietzsche, until he thought about it for more than 10 minutes, found the abyss underneath and where mankind is going, and wrote “Beyond Good and Evil”.

The point I was making about these new Christian sects is if they want people to keep the morals of Christianity but abandon any kind of transcendence or anything metaphysically higher than man, then that’s been done already – that’s just humanism.

Musycks on March 31, 2008, 10:22 PM

I think ‘humanism’ stems from empathy mainly. I don’t believe something outside me will condemn or reward me for my actions.. that doesn’t mean I will choose to behave poorly. Do unto others seems a sensible evolutionary construct for continued survival of the species. If I respond to human emotions, all of them, then surley it’s preferable to love and be loved. That’s a no-brainer.

Mary Coyote on March 31, 2008, 10:33 PM

cerenziam posted: ‘And if that avant guard pastor’s elimination of Christ from Christianity also eliminates transcendence, then that’s just dumb – it would just simply be humanism of some kind, which ultimately will drown in the abyss of nihilism.‘

musycks posted; ’Not sure humanism is on a course pre-set for nihilism? I suppose I’m broadly humanist, and I long for the poetic and the ‘transcendent’, or the mystical.. I just fail to see how a supernatural explanation is essential for it.. it’s within us, not outside.‘

perhaps a ’transcendent’ story is necessary to keep the idea afloat? If the story of Jesus was not about a magician who died and returned to life, would we still remember him?

I recommend a transcendent story based upon our knowledge of the universe:

The Sun
Our father in heaven
Our mother the Earth
We are your children

Or, if you prefer, the story of Coyote is an ancient transcendent story that still resonates with relevance for our post-modern world.

Mary Coyote on March 31, 2008, 10:46 PM

Humanism means a human-centric view.
Religion necessitates a god-centric view.
The problem is that the god-centric view is really a manufactured human-centric one.

Humanism is any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate; Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans; the doctrine that people’s duty is to promote human welfare

As a pragmatic system of thought, defined 1907 by co-founder F.C.S. Schiller as: “The perception that the philosophical problem concerns human beings striving to comprehend a world of human experience by the resources of human minds.”

The story of Coyote is a human-centric story; a human story; a part of the Human Song.

Mark Cerenzia on March 31, 2008, 11:19 PM

musycks: that doesn’t mean I will choose to behave “poorly”

What is “poorly”? The term is meaningless. There’s no agreement about what the term means, even in a social contract between members of a society.

“Do unto others seems a sensible evolutionary construct for continued survival of the species.”

Countless nations of mankind have flourished because of their reliance on slavery, domination of neighbor states, etc. The salient example would be Rome and certainly just about every nation until the middle ages when finally Christian churches decreed slavery as immoral and the slaves immediately reverted to peasants.
But without something higher than man, why are slavery, subordination of women, slaughtering of animals, etc. bad? And if you say it would be for the greater good of society to deny each of these, I will counter: Germany’s economy in the 1920s was doing terribly until Hitler rose to power. His acts, which seem violent or ‘poor’ to us now, must be accepted as “good” for society if they helped the economy – which they did, immensely. So then you must ask: if this is what I consider good, i.e., what’s good for society, then how can you possibly have any qualification for humanism’s definition of ‘good’?

Musycks on April 1, 2008, 12:16 AM

Cz,
If to behave poorly in terms of how one human treats another is too difficult a concept for you to grasp so as to be meaningless? then I’m not sure where that leaves me to be honest…

Coyote,
I see and feel and understand human.. nothing else.. all that that encompasses, I suppose, not ALL of which I understand… including our innate ability to embrace and ponder the abstract, the poetic…. the human song? I’m trying to sing a harmony at least!

Mark Cerenzia on April 1, 2008, 1:11 AM

musycks:
If I were an atheist, that’s right, I wouldn’t grasp its purpose – there would be no purpose. I’m saying the term is meaningless in this subjective worldview. Why is it bad to treat another human being “poorly”? It could just as easily be considered “good” by many others or even by an entire society. As I said before, this is where I believe humanism to be engulfed by nihilism.

Musycks on April 1, 2008, 2:11 AM

Cz,
I’m a little lost here… you say that if you were an atheist you wouldn’t grasp what I (an atheist)stated? if you truly think there are no moral guidelines written on the heart of man.. do not kill, do no harm, have empathy, et al. that are not celestial dictates, then I can’t help you…

subtleties and nuance of what constitutes ‘poorly’ aside, where’s the evidence that humans left alone will descend into nihilism?

Mark Cerenzia on April 1, 2008, 1:48 PM

musycks:

1) No, I don’t think there are moral guidelines written on the heart of man, especially if there’s no one there to write them. Everything you stated – do not kill, do no harm, have empathy, et al. – have all been rejected in many different societies throughout man’s history. In fact, these societies flourished because they oppressed certain people.

2) nihilism = the reality of the atheistic worldview. Unlike these atheist authors today, Nietzsche wasn’t trying to sell atheism like it’s some big party where all rational people gather. He believed this worldview to be true, but this truth greatly troubled him – the implications are harsher than people want to admit.

Mary Coyote on April 1, 2008, 3:51 PM

I am looking for the post made by Dan Ariely ( http://www.bigthink.com/experts/dan-ariely )who seemed to argue that the human experience was more important than the objective truth. I should have saved the URL.

He said this was proven by the placebo experiment: a patient receives pain relief from a saline injection which s/he believes to be pain medication.

This seems to indicate that god does not have to be real, but that the effect that a belief in god creates is MORE REAL. Thus morality does not need its basis in god, but in the HUMAN creation of the idea of god, or the ever evolving human ideas of appropriate behavior.

In philosophy, morality is just that; an ever-evolving code that is programmed by cultural values.

And since we have seen religions also capable of great evil, one cannot justifiably argue that an objective god (a real object separate and independent of humanity) is necessary to define what is ‘poor’ human behavior. Want to know what poor human behavior is: tempt your mother, or a policeman.

Mary Coyote on April 1, 2008, 4:23 PM

cerenziam posted:
‘No, I don’t think there are moral guidelines written on the heart of man, especially if there’s no one there to write them.‘

………..
You have failed to read or comprehend some of my posts. You speak of humanity as if we were an empty vessel; as if we are filled with humanity from our belief in god. Yet you ignore that animals WITHOUT a belief in god know the appropriate behavior necessary for the survival of the species. The same for the human animal, no?

I speak in terms of the Human Song: this is the genetic, evolutionary, historical and cultural coding (programming) that identifies the species. This is what is ’written on the heart of man.’ Note that the very latest in genetic science now offers evidence of what I call ‘genetic memory.’

The very oldest writing that we have unearthed and deciphered tell not only the story of civilizing the man-beast with bread, beer and sex (Gilgamesh), but also include what we now call the Ten Commandments. The very oldest of humanity’s culture indicates evidence of a human code and an explanation for the civilizing/organizing effects of human culture. What is written on our hearts is older than our oldest writings; is this not proof of the value of the Human Song?

Mary Coyote on April 1, 2008, 4:26 PM

Nihilism can be a charge leveled against a particular idea, movement, or group; however, it is also a philosophical position to which one may overtly subscribe. Movements such as Dada, Futurism, and deconstructionism, among others, have been identified by commentators as “nihilistic” at various times in various contexts.

Often this means or is meant to imply that the beliefs of the accuser are MORE SUBSTANTIAL OR TRUTHFUL, whereas the beliefs of the accused are nihilistic, and thereby comparatively amount to nothing (or are simply claimed to be destructively amoralistic).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Mark Cerenzia on April 1, 2008, 6:33 PM

Coyote: What is written on our hearts is older than our oldest writings; is this not proof of the value of the Human Song?

Yes, man is a social animal so he needs to be nice to others in his society, mainly to those that benefit him back. So the environment one grows up in shapes his morals. But it doesn’t follow from this that he has to be nice to all humans, to all animated things, or even to the world. This is my point. A society can be cruel to those less powerful than it and benefit greatly from it. This is the will to power, and it’s seen in “COUNTLESS” societies throughout history and at present. Man has no reason to be nice to other men any more than lions are nice to antelope: they are nice to others in its group but not to neighboring groups.

“Often this means or is meant to imply that the beliefs of the accuser are MORE SUBSTANTIAL OR TRUTHFUL”

This makes no sense, sorry. Nihilism is the reality of a godless world. You don’t have to ascribe to it, but it’s still true.

Mary Coyote on April 1, 2008, 9:21 PM

Why? Because Nietzsche said so? I did not see any argument or reference posted here that supported that assumption.

What was meant is that the person leveling charges of Nihilism did so from an assumed position of self-importance.

Mary Coyote on April 1, 2008, 9:23 PM

cerenziam posted:
‘This makes no sense, sorry. Nihilism is the reality of a godless world. You don’t have to ascribe to it, but it’s still true.’

……….
Why? Because Nietzsche said so? I did not see any argument or reference posted here that supported that assumption.

What was meant is that the person leveling charges of Nihilism did so from an assumed position of self-importance.

Musycks on April 1, 2008, 9:41 PM

Does Nihilism preclude the sublime, the trancendant? does an animal recieve joy in the interaction of it’s offspring? if it’s sufficiently evolved it obviously does.
it’s within us to find great good and great harm.. impulse to ‘love’ rather than hate, makes perfect evolutionary/biological sense.. and fight for what you need to protect (life, family etc) does as well.. introduce greed and artificial constructs like follow my sky-god or else… why? because he says that if you don’t worship him you are damned for eternity!! then you pervert these impulses.
It is within us, not without us…. nothing nihilistic about that.

Mark Cerenzia on April 2, 2008, 12:37 AM

Coyote: “Why? Because Nietzsche said so?”

Yes. Nietzsche is my reference, and his arguments are throughout his works. I don’t have time to cite them, go read them yourself. You may not like his conclusions, but it’s his arguments you have to find something wrong with – and they’re airtight.
Plus, anyone can make the charge of nihilism without self-importance. What you meant still makes no sense to me.

musycks: “Does Nihilism preclude the sublime, the trancendant?”

Absolutely there’s no transcendence. Again, your arguments about being nice to family, feeling joy, etc. have little to do with my argument. There’s still no reason why I can’t love my family and friends and hate/oppress the weak for my advantage – explain to me what’s wrong with this.

“because he says that if you don’t worship him you are damned for eternity!”

I’m beginning to question how superficial your understanding of religion is. Few learned members of religions will have this view. You’ve probably been hanging around too many fundamentals.

Musycks on April 2, 2008, 1:24 AM

Cz,
I’m struggling… you seem to have written mankind off as a bunch of mindless killers, all out for themselves?
You wrote… ‘do not kill, do no harm, have empathy, et al. – have all been rejected in many different societies throughout man’s history. In fact, these societies flourished because they oppressed certain people’

If the heart of man has no capacity to embrace empathy in and of itself, without an outside force, then what? the poetic I think will remain open to us, more as an accumulation of evolutionary traits than an imposed ability from ‘beyond, but still there nonetheless.. as will the ability to do harm.
hmm… maybe the ’learned religious’ mean something other to you than they do to me?
The kind of learning that leads to ‘how many angels on the head of a pin’? Just as useless as the Fundies.
and call me superficial if it makes you happy. Just don’t ask me to define happy.

Mark Cerenzia on April 2, 2008, 1:52 AM

musycks:

I didn’t think I called you superficial. I just meant your impression of religion is only of its surface – the cheap side I also dislike.

And yeah, Erasmus got ridiculed for that point, but people misunderstood him. Erasmus’ point in saying that an infinite number of angels can fit on the head of a pin was only to teach his students that angels, if they really exist, are immaterial and so don’t take up space.

My point in this whole discussion is that without anything higher than man, there’s no justification to act one way or another. You may counter and say people are nice because that’s the only way society could work, or that its an evolutionary result, but I’m saying the history of mankind is evidence otherwise. What you take to be good/kind is actually the result of the 2000 years of christian morals and of moral philosophy. Kind to you might be feeding a fellow human; kind to a Roman was allowing a slave to have a quick death. Were the Nazis kind to Jews?

Mary Coyote on April 2, 2008, 2:54 AM

cerenziam:
A nihilist is a person who condemns the world because it is NOT as-it-ought-to-be, but also argues that the-world-as-it-ought-to-be does not exist. Thus, because the perfect world cannot possibly exist, then this world is not worth the effort. ( Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 585)

Christianity is a nihilistic religion.

Thus YOU are then the nihilist: you are arguing that humankind cannot possibly act with kindness to everyone, that ‘a society can be cruel to those less powerful than it and benefit greatly from it.’

Thus, because it is impossible for a society to act AS-IT-OUGHT-TO-BE, then this world is not worth the effort WITHOUT a god.

Thus your argument either is a nihilist one, or it fits the criticism of those who use the term ‘nihilist’ as an accusation or a condemnation.

I suggest you bone up on nihilism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Musycks on April 2, 2008, 4:21 AM

Cz,
I think you are very smart, much smarter than me. You must therefore know that Xtianity is a moveable set of goalposts… and they move and adapt to the times in concert and context of those times. It has contributed as a source for good and bad, as have many other sets of values. So what?How did China and India get along without it? there’s your control group. Anarchy and nihilism there? No, just myths and stories trying to make sense of it all.. like the Xtians.
If we are now arguing in support of Xtian philosophy, which has at the heart of it the idea of a celestial dictator decreeing.. ‘worship me, or burn in hell for eternity’… what sort of a civilising message is that? morals at the equivalent of a divine gun-barrel.
No higher form than man? You say that like it’s a bad thing.
We are life Cz, no more no less.. how life treats life in the gigantic petrie dish we live in is interesting enough, without complicating it by inviting someone’s imaginary friend along.

Coyote,
I’m not equipped to argue the minutae and pedantry of the classic philosophers.. I’m sure glad you’re up for it!

Keep rocking.. this is good stuff from both of you. Thanks.

Mark Cerenzia on April 2, 2008, 8:24 PM

Coyote: “Christianity is a nihilistic religion”

Spoken like a true Nietzschean. But take this with grain of salt – Nietzsche thought everything was nihilistic.
And I never denied that my argument was for nihilism. I was playing devil’s advocate if you hadn’t noticed. My argument was that without a God or something transcendentally higher, it would a nihilistic world. To continue my example, there is no reason why a society couldn’t take advantage of the weaker for its own benefit in a Godless universe. But in a worldview like Christianity, there are plenty of reasons for a people not to do so: keeping one’s soul ‘clean’, worry for salvation, preserving creation, etc.

musycks:

Well, that was a very modest post, and I appreciate your kind words, as undeserved as they may be. But if it weren’t for the moving of those goalposts, it wouldn’t be Christianity. Augustine, one of the earliest fathers of the church, said many progressive things, most importantly that if new knowledge discovered by science/reason contradicts the present interpretation of the Bible, then consider a new one [interpretation].
And I don’t think any informed Christian thinks of God as a celestial dictator demanding worship or else we burn in hell. Hell, as I have come to know it, is the result of person/soul focused on itself, a somewhat Platonic idea. God doesn’t want anyone to be away from Him – hell is place locked from the inside. That’s why Christianity tells people to be selfless.
And both China and India are flooded with different forms of Hinduism and Buddhism, which both share much with Christianity. Although Hinduism has 330 million gods, if you ask ANY Hindu, he will tell you everyone really worships the One Brahmin, and Buddhism likewise posits the reality of the One. Could the “One” be God?
You might be misled, as many other atheists have been, by the seemingly endless number of gods man has worshiped throughout time, but why couldn’t they all be different representations of the same One? If he exists, why can’t God be operative in more than just one culture?

Musycks on April 2, 2008, 8:57 PM

Cz,
Somehere around 40% of American Xtians take the bible literally.. it’ll be less in Europe I guess? By what authority do I swallow your ‘spiritualised’ progressive notions of the story as opposed to their Fundie viewpoint?

Yes, most cultures share the common traits of trying to make sense of their environments? and given that we are all human with similar brains that look for similar patterns, coming up with similar concepts is no big leap. In fact, it would support the hypothesis that ’God’in any variant is from within man, not outside?

We invented God, we just didn’t do a very good job of it.

Mark Cerenzia on April 2, 2008, 9:18 PM

musycks: “By what authority do I swallow your ‘spiritualised’ progressive notions of the story as opposed to their Fundie viewpoint?”

By argumentation. Fundamentals point to the Bible, disregard the reality of the world, and make unjustified conclusions. Plus, you can’t expect truth to lie in the masses.
Conversely, through pure reason, both Aristotle and Plato came up with ideas of the One: the former, the unmoved mover; the latter, the demiurge. It was Plotinus who united the best philosophy in his day with Neo-Platonism. This was the same time as the rise of Christianity. Why did it rise so well? Because the most brilliant men of the day who ascribed to this philosophy realized that it worked seamlessly with Christianity, and these men were the eventual leaders of the movement. Later, Aquinas would do the same, but this time with more focus on Aristotle. And finally today, many great thinkers view the world in a similar but new way – a one Alasdair MacIntyre in particular is among the foremost.
Does this mean you have to ascribe to it? Absolutely not. But it does mean that all of these men deserve respect in their beliefs as they at least demonstrate rationality in faith.

Musycks on April 2, 2008, 9:59 PM

Cz,
Well.. we’re in danger of getting into Dr Strangelove territory here… ‘our German scientists are better than their German scientists’ becomes, my great thinkers are better than your great thinkers.
The most brilliant of men have been both religious and athiest. It may say as much about their culture and history and context as it does about God as an idea.
That most philosophers attempt to define and re-shape past thought through their own contemporary prism of understanding does not imply truth of any sort, of course, but I wonder where we will be once the residue of the clerics several thousand years of holding sway recedes? when atheists are not viewed as freaks by the mainstream and rational thought has had more than a fleeting moment in time to take root.

Xtianity I think ‘rose so well’ mainly because it rode on the coat-tails of expansionist imperialist Empires. Rome first, then via the ships of England and Spain. More political than not?

However any philosopher approaches these questions, I remain unconvinced of an outside, guiding force. It makes sense that we are connected to the living, whatever that implies I don’t know…. so your ‘progressive’ new-age Xtian God is for me as un-knowable and remote as the fundies version… but I’m open to the poetic and the beautiful…. I find most peoples idea of God in the sounds musical harmonies make. For me that’s enough.

Mark Cerenzia on April 2, 2008, 11:27 PM

This is my last long post, I promise

musycks:“Xtianity I think ‘rose so well’ mainly because it rode on the coat-tails of expansionist imperialist Empires. Rome first, then via the ships of England and Spain. More political than not?”

I’m sorry sir, but as a Classics major, this simply isn’t right. Rome was not expanding; on the contrary, it was deteriorating. It was 100 years beyond its largest expanse of Hadrian’s rule when the movement really began to pick up.

And that’s right: both views have their great thinkers and you need to choose who you want to follow. Let it be known, however, it’s hard to escape the harsh truths of Nietszche. If it’s a godless world, there’s no good or evil; no free will; no truth; no idea’s we continue to cling onto, such as love, beauty, etc.; et al.

For the past two years, I was a belligerent Atheist. I followed all today’s authors, I would start arguments with anyone, I scoffed at the idea of faith – this was all before I began philosophy and learned to reason better for myself. Then the holes in the arguments of these authors began to emerge, and I began to see things in another light. Currently, I’m still in suspended judgment about the matter, but do feel I’m on the road to Christianity. Want to know what diverted me from atheism? It was a moment of realization that may matter little to you, but continues to weigh heavily on my mind the more I comprehend it: If there were no God, there would be no point in knowing this [i.e., knowing there is no God].

Mary Coyote on April 3, 2008, 12:52 AM

cerenziam:
Your position is indeed nihilist:

- ’ If there were no God’ then the world is NOT as-it-ought-to-be.
- A godless world means that the-world-as-it-ought-to-be does not exist.
- Thus, because the perfect world cannot possibly exist, ‘there would be no point in knowing this’ world.

I really think that you may be misusing the term nihilist. Perhaps you should post your definition and understanding of what nihilism is. I suspect that you only use the term as an accusation and thus see it ONLY as derogatory.

Nihilism is the worst of Idealism. The Idealist despairs that his/her ideal world is impossible, and gives up on this world.

Christian Rome fell to the barbarians because of nihilism. Augustine was a nihilist. Remember his argument of the City of Man verses the City of God? Rome was crumbling under barbarian assault and Augustine argued that it did not matter; that the City of God was more important. That the IDEAL trumped the REAL

The City of Man was unimportant because it could not match the ideal of the New Jerusalem where Jesus rules. Thus, and this was Augustine’s argument, The City of Man, or Human Civilization did not matter. And with this argument, human civilization indeed almost disappeared as the DARK AGES descended.

It was Christian nihilism that allowed the apex of human civilization to be destroyed. We have already been there, done that; there is no need to allow current religions to do the same.

Islamist terrorists are nihilists: they see this world as worthless while the next world is ideal. The Christian Fundamentalists behind this Bush administration are nihilists, in that they pine for Armageddon to hasten the ideal world of New Jerusalem.

Mary Coyote on April 3, 2008, 12:57 AM

Sorry. Replace human civilization below with Western civilization.

Western chavinism. My bad

Mark Cerenzia on April 3, 2008, 1:11 AM

Coyote:

Allow me to quote myself from below: “And I never denied that my argument was for nihilism.” Meaning I never said my argument wasn’t for nihilism. This is how I’ve been using the term from the beginning:
nihilism = the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless
The whole purpose of Nietzsche’s philosophy was to show that both human psychology of the world and the world itself – and so everything – are nihilistic. So you saying that all these religions are nihilistic is a gross misinterpretation of nihilism in general – it only shows what Nietzsche tried to do by analyzing human psychology. The definition above is how the term is frequently used and how I’ve been using it.

And I don’t have time to sit here to keep on explaining myself only to have you bring up some additional wild conclusions that I must in turn respond to. Your history assessments are largely inaccurate.

Mark Cerenzia on April 3, 2008, 1:13 AM

Well, western civilization would certainly make more sense (that threw me off), but it’s still inaccurate

Musycks on April 3, 2008, 1:13 AM

Cz,
I’ll defer to a classical scholar of course… but is it not the case that the boost legitimacy of the faith Rome gave them, albeit at the fag end of Imperialism, was the reason it migrated easily to the Rome centric outposts in Gaul and Britanny?
That impetus flowed through to vast slabs of the globe via Spanish conquistadors and English sea-farers.
If not, America and Sth America might be very different places? methinks therefore you are finding your way back to Jesus for mostly historical and cultural reasons, however ‘up to speed’ your philosophy is?
regard me as a speed bump on the journey!

I am interested as to why the Xtian version should attract you though?

keep thinking and writing and thanks for the posts.

Mark Cerenzia on April 3, 2008, 1:38 AM

musycks:

Well, I’m hardly a scholar, but you might be interested to know I’m at this very moment translating De Rerum Natura by Lucretius, perhaps the first great advancement of a naturalistic worldview.

I know part of the reason Christianity spread was due to its availability to anyone. Not all religions accepted just anyone.

The reason why I am probably inclined towards Christianity is two-fold: I’m attracted to its strong intellectual tradition; my family’s Christian. I really don’t believe one belief matters that much over another. In fact, I don’t think being Christian so much means having certain beliefs as acting a certain way. If you are an atheist who follows the morals of Jesus, then you are a Christian in my book, whether you like it or not. A Christian is not some one who thinks Jesus is the son of God, but then is also a serial killer. Its being a Christian qua Christian, an idea dealt with at length in the first book of Plato’s Republic.

Musycks on April 3, 2008, 1:42 AM

Cz,
are you sympathetic to the gnostic line of Xtian thought or the Apostolic? some of Coyote’s points are supported by the branch of Xtian thought that posited human flesh as worthless… the ‘inner’ light was their version of JC’s teachings?
If flesh is corrupt and worthless, and if you’re a woman even moreso, taking men’s impulse away from the ‘higher’… then it won’t have much value attached under that paradigm?

Mary Coyote on April 3, 2008, 1:52 AM

cerenziam posted:
‘:My argument was that without a God or something transcendentally higher, it would a nihilistic world.’

……….
I understand the argument of Christian influence upon 2000 years of Western thought, but cannot accept plugging that into a dichotomy, where a lack of that influence would have created a world where the strong bully the weak…………..oh wait, that isn’t that the world we already live in?

That is a common Christian argument. (You are failing to question more closely those that seek your conversion.) And it is also a common Christian argument that no-god equals nihilism. I have never seen the arguments that support this, but I have seen a lot of assumptions (such as yours) that this must be true.

And we can see that your definition of nihilism has been twisted by Christian assumptions from its original meaning.

cerenziam posted:
nihilism = the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless

Wikipedia:
Nihilism is a philosophical position which argues that past and current human existence is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. (i.e.: we are animals)

Nietzsche:
A nihilist is a person who condemns the world because it is NOT as-it-ought-to-be, but also argues that the-world-as-it-ought-to-be does not exist. Thus, because the perfect world cannot possibly exist, then this world is not worth the effort. ( Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 585)


I think I have already made it clear that nihilism seems to be a product of those who aspire to idealism, rather than those who reject it. According to Nietzsche, who rejected Nihilism, it occurs when the idealist hits the wall, such as you did with your ‘belligerent Atheist’ stance. If nihilism results from atheism, then YOU are proof of that, as you reject the failures of this world to meet your needs for certainty; that is why you cannot accept a world without god.

At least this is my understanding of Nietzsche. If it is incorrect, prove it. And if my ‘history assessments are largely inaccurate,’ prove it.

Musycks on April 3, 2008, 2:16 AM

Xtianity or any God centred construct that reduces man to trash-flesh/sin vessels is not exactly a shining beacon compared to nihilsm? If there is no evidence that they got it right (and I’m yet to see it), then we are devaluing and degrading the only life experience we can know.
How insane is that?
we may be the bete noir for the God-botherers, but give me the sun on my face anyday. That I understand.

and Cz, if you had been born in India or China and were working your way out of atheism, would you be heading JC’s way?

Mary Coyote on April 3, 2008, 2:16 AM

cerenziam posted:
‘If you are an atheist who follows the morals of Jesus, then you are a Christian in my book, whether you like it or not.’

……
No you are not. You are human.

That is Christian chauvinism: attempting to appropriate human values as Christian property.

And where did Jesus get his moral values from? Judah. So if I follow ‘the morals of Jesus’ that makes me Jewish?

It is interesting how you so loosely define your words. You make philosophical arguments using layman definitions of nihilism, then define Christianity with some airy-fairy ‘personal meaning’ that destroys philosophical communication and stakes out your personal chauvinism.

A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament and interpreted by Christians to have been prophesied in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. An adherent of a RELIGION.

Musycks on April 3, 2008, 2:40 AM

Coyote is correct… not even all Xtians will agree what constitutes membership of the (admittedly large) cult.
Cz… will you be a ‘metaphorical’ Xtian? you seem to think I may be too… even though both value systems intersect at certain points… I don’t accept a personal God at any level.. I am, if anything, a humanist.

Musycks on April 3, 2008, 3:41 AM

cerenzium, I forgot to say good luck with the Lucretius, I assume it’s from the latin. For years the Christian Brothers tried to teach me it, but sadly all I remember is amo, amas, amat!

Mark Cerenzia on April 3, 2008, 7:03 PM

Coyote:

Ah, I finally read the Wikipedia page and know where the confusion lies. I believe you read the introduction to the page as referring to nihilism in general, when actually it is giving all its possible uses. For my definition, I copied it from the Oxford American Dictionary, which reflected exactly the way my professors had been using the term, and your excerpt from the wikipedia page forgot the most important part:

"Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following:

1) there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator,
2) a “true morality” does not exist, and
3) objective secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other." – Wikipedia

It was upon this third point that I was capitalizing. I was saying that in an atheistic world, there is no reason why people cannot call everything into doubt, namely morality: no more Hobbesian contracts or Lockian governmental contracts, etc.
As for Nietzsche, he believed the world to be nihilistic and the only way to get beyond it is with the rise of the Overman. His greatest worry, as expressed in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, is that we are the ‘last man’ and will never get beyond this phase. And as I said before, he called Christianity nihilistic because he was trying to show that the world really is nihilistic in its psychology. Here’s another line from your wiki page:

“Nietzsche also believed that, even though he thought Christian morality was nihilistic, without God humanity is left with no epistemological or moral base from which we can derive absolute beliefs.”

So if the world is nihilistic with God and nihilistic without God, is there any escaping it? Yes. Nietzsche called Christianity nihilistic only insofar as it undermined the present life in hope of a better one later – but there’s more to nihilism than this, as is shown above. So Christians and any other zealots that devalue life – namely fundamentalists – are nihilistic to Nietzsche. But much of Christianity focuses on the value of life, as apparent by the preservation of creation and kindness towards others.

As for your commenting that Christian morals were not new, this could only result from your ignorance of the times and of the evolution of morality. You are going to have to face the facts: until Jesus, no one – this even goes for the best of moral philosophy in Aristotle and Plato – stressed the importance of Charity [agape/charitas]. It was this stress that led to many of the morals which you take for granted, especially equality of man, loving one another, etc.

musycks:

Here’s the conclusion I was getting at before: beliefs=meaningless up until they affect how you act. If you already act as a Christian should without buying into the whole transcendence thing – Great, you are a Christian in my opinion. You say to this, “I am a humanist.” To me, Humanism=Christianity without God.
But my standing worry that arises without God – people can think about it for more than 10 minutes and call into doubt the present structure of morals.

Musycks on April 3, 2008, 8:08 PM

Cz,
You’ve said a mouthful!… you are certainly more enamoured of the semantics of who said what in the annals of philosophy than I am I think.. for better or worse… I beat a hasty retreat in taht area and leave you to Coyote’s ripostes.

Ascribing current morals to a mainly Jesus-centric view of the world is still a fairly long bow to draw.
Chris Hitchens said it well when he said something like.. Do you mean to say that as little as less than 3000 years ago, middle eastern humans were wandering around in the desert under the impression that raping and killing and stealing were perfectly fine, when all of a sudden, God intervened. roughly 6 billion years after setting evolution in motion and maybe 100,000 years AFTER modern humans evolved?
Now, I know you don’t line up with the Fundies, but to ascribe current morality as mainly influenced by Xtian thought and philosophy is nearly as insulting.
Humans were getting on very well in lots of parts of the globe that still barely know of JC…. and long, long before he arrived.

I think there are great thinkers in Xtianity, but you give them too much credit, leave some for mankind my friend.

Mark Cerenzia on April 3, 2008, 11:37 PM

Musycks:

Well, I wouldn’t have said so much if I didn’t come home to like 20 posts against which I have to defend my honor! But some of it was copy and paste anyways.
I guess I didn’t expect you to have read everything I posted to Coyote below, but please don’t think I’m ascribing morality as a whole to Christianity. I LOVE Plato and Aristotle, and certainly many forms of law – Hammurabi, Ur-Nammu, etc. And obviously for society to have worked before towns and cities, there had to have been some kinds of social contracts among people. But I am ascribing the idea of Charity as revolutionary and unique to Christian thought. It was Charity that lead to many of the humanistic ideas which we take for granted. As I was saying before, a society can do quite well without preserving our commonly held beliefs of equality and empathy – and that’s exactly what societies did before and during the Christian movement.

To quickly comment on Mr. Hitchens, I know many of his arguments well, and this happens to be one I began not to like after a while. Two things: first, a person who believes in the bible can simply respond that we of course had morality for much of our existence, but it wasn’t until Moses that this morality was found to be commanded from above. Would I use this response? No, as I take little in the Old Testament to be actually true, but it’s certainly a fine reply for any religious person. Second, this argument can be flipped on its head against Atheism.
Here’s what you believe if you’re an atheist: never mind that you think everything exists “just cause”, you need to accept that everything resulted without free will. (If you contend that you do have freedom of choice, it’s the old “Watchmaker Fallacy” – just because you seem to have a complex array of decisions, doesn’t mean that you really do. You choose what you were going to choose.) So if every living entity ever has followed a set series of cause and effect, not Beethoven, Mozart, Da Vinci, and Michaelangelo, but the Universe created every complex piece of art they did. Furthermore, the Universe somehow produced beings us that have become self-aware of this determinism! Really?
Now, this might be the case of things, but conversely, it might really be the case that God set everything into motion for 17 billion years, and waited 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history before interacting. For myself, I’m heading down the road of German Idealism (namely of Leibniz, Berkeley [Irish], and Kant), and few of these science arguments persuade me.

Mark Cerenzia on April 3, 2008, 11:38 PM

Although I know I’m the one of the offenders, I move that we try to make shorter responses from here on out.

Musycks on April 4, 2008, 12:08 AM

Thanks Cz, for your well reasoned and complex arguments. shorter?… I’ll try.

I just can’t get my head around a creating, interventionist God model, certainly not the Xtian one… I grew up Catholic, I know that team inside out. I’m so made that I cannot believe.

Whatever caused this… I can only guess at, but it is my reality?. No other sentient being has sat in on my design and is not interested in any outcomes that result.
I am here because I am here, in an indifferent universe, with the sun on my face.
Rock on Cerenzium… can’t wait for Coyote to bite.

Mark Cerenzia on April 4, 2008, 12:20 AM

Musycks:

Please don’t think my post about shorter lengths applied to you – yours are fine. It’s both mine and Coyote’s that need to be shorter.
And whatever you believe is fine as long as you’re a nice person. Really what I have been trying to achieve with all these posts is simply a respect for those with faith, as there are many who deserve it. They’ve already thought of many of the objections with which we are dealing and chose a path of faith, and I see nothing wrong with it.

Musycks on April 4, 2008, 1:23 AM

CZ,
I agree to people of faith being given respect, as long as like me, they’ve earned it. If their supernatural beliefs don’t intrude into the public arena, great.
When they do, they should be held to account…. beyond the esoteric, and into the real world, where Vatican policy increases the rise of AIDS in Africa, and US leaders have neo-cons citing biblical
imprimatur for military incursions into you know where. et al.

Sorry to get all political on your ass.

Mark Cerenzia on April 4, 2008, 1:40 AM

musycks:

But religions are nothing more than ideologies, just like atheism. It is impossible to have people’s ideologies not influence politics. Even if it seems like people give religious justification for their poor political decisions, those poor decisions could just as easily have resulted from any ideology for any reason. It’s really just bad, or dumb, people that make those poor decisions
I also think that the criticism of the Vatican for saying condom use is wrong remains misrepresented with respect to Africa. You give the Vatican two options: tell people they can use condoms or not. Since it’s the Catholic church’s desire that people spend their time in more noble acts, it would be hypocritical for them to tell people to use condoms. Moreover, I will never believe that there are people in Africa who say “Sure, I’ll be Christian, listen to that instruction, but completely disregard all the others about remaining abstinent or about avoiding a lascivious lifestyle.” No, the people who spread AIDS are probably not Christians but rather are just bad people who rape women with abandon.

Musycks on April 4, 2008, 2:08 AM

cerenzium,
Does not an august organisation like the Vatican provide the fabric upon which it’s faithful exist. In the sated middle class west we eschew some of the more unpalatable options if we have better information. Catholic women in these lucky countries of course take contraceptives and use condoms to prevent exposure to STD’s and AIDS, marginal though it may be. But to assume this is the case in developing countries is again a big leap.

I’m no expert, and I’ll take advice, but the reports I’ve read indicate AIDS is an epidemic there, and Catholicism is on the rise. How does official catholic teaching react to real world problems? by pretending these people won’t have sex? by saying abstain and focus on the ‘higher’ self? good luck. medieval mumbo jumbo that has no place in this day and age, and the corollary is more people are dying. that is real evil at work my friend, no matter the angel/pin ratio.

Mark Cerenzia on April 4, 2008, 2:29 AM

“but the reports I’ve read indicate AIDS is an epidemic there, and Catholicism is on the rise.”

It doesn’t follow definitively from this that one is the cause of the other – AIDS was bound to rise. I still think these critical results are from people that think the Catholic birth control policies are the cause of the spread of AIDS, which I simply don’t believe. The culture in Africa is much more primitive where sex with many women is normal and even accepted, so I think the Catholic church’s aim is to raise them up from this mindset. Again, I still think it’s a leap to suggest people will accept one little doctrine that’s supposedly detrimental to their health but disregard all the others about focusing on less on sex, which would actually solve the problem better than using condoms. In fact, if they are told they can have all the sex they want as long as they have condoms, what will happen when they run out but still have heightened sexual desires that need satisfied? No one is going to stop them from having sex.
But neverminding all of this, people in Africa have a hard enough time finding food, do you really think they have resources such as condoms readily available to them?

Mary Coyote on April 4, 2008, 4:03 PM

cerenziam:
This has been getting seriously off-topic, so I posted a new idea with the hope that others will find it and join. Look up to RESPONSES at the top right hand corner, or
http://www.bigthink.com/faith-beliefs/9493

I will be busy elsewhere for next day or so, and may not respond, but I will get back.

Coyote

Mary Coyote on April 4, 2008, 4:13 PM

Cerenziam posted: ‘The culture in Africa is much more primitive where sex with many women is normal and even accepted’

….
You really are a chauvinist, aren’t you.

Syphilis was brought to Europe by the Spanish conquistadors, primitive as they were to have sex with ‘primitive people,’ and spread like wildfire across Europe proving that Christianity was no prophylactic to a ‘primitive’ people ‘where sex with many women is normal.’

Just because you have had only one partner does not mean that your morality or level of civilization is so much better.

And yes the Vatican discourages social activism of it’s ministers, or the extending of Charity to the political sphere thus making Charity widely accessible to the populations. The Church thus actively DISCOURAGES Charity.

Mark Cerenzia on April 4, 2008, 7:51 PM

Coyote:

If you look below, I have responded at length to our nihilism discussion. Please look and reply as I don’t want to have typed it for nothing.

As for the sexual behavior of tribemen in Africa, I have no idea how you can call me a chauvinist for saying they have sex with far more people and far more frequently. I never brought up whether it was moral or immoral – you did.

Musycks on April 4, 2008, 9:08 PM

Coyote and Cz… this seems a fork in the road… let’s subdivide some of these threads as per Coyote’s idea, and maybe the AIDS in Africa/Vatican imbroglio is for another section also?

Either way, my thanks to both of you for stimulating my synapses and my heart.
cheers.

Mary Coyote on April 7, 2008, 1:25 AM

Cerenziam posted:
‘The culture in Africa is much more primitive where sex with many women is normal and even accepted’

cerenziam posted:
‘As for the sexual behavior of tribemen in Africa, I have no idea how you can call me a chauvinist for saying they have sex with far more people and far more frequently. I never brought up whether it was moral or immoral – you did.’

….

quote:
‘The culture in Africa is much more PRIMITIVE,
(how is it more primitive?)
where sex with many women is normal and EVEN ACCEPTED’

….
PRIMITIVE = MORE SEX. YOU said it. I never suggested morality; YOU did. I said that your logic was chauvinist justification.

You don’t get it, do you? Same with what I said about the swinging around the Nihilist charge at atheists like it was a moral cudgel: it’s a false logical tool as outlined in that Wikipedia outline you noted.

I read your posts: no time to respond. Sorry. Maybe a couple days if I am still on-track.

Musycks on April 7, 2008, 2:41 AM

take this how you will…. but I think cerenzium will make an excellent catholic.

Mark Cerenzia on April 7, 2008, 6:29 PM

Coyote:

1) They are more primitive because that’s what apes do: have sex with many females to assert their dominance and keep the females in their pack. It is primitive, and the word chauvinist isn’t even applicable to one who makes this claim – it doesn’t even make sense.

2) " You don’t get it, do you? Same with what I said about the swinging around the Nihilist charge at atheists like it was a moral cudgel: it’s a false logical tool as outlined in that Wikipedia outline you noted."

No, you don’t get it: you grossly misread wikipedia. It has multiple paragraphs in the introduction saying what nihilism ‘can’ mean, not that every paragraph defines nihilism as a whole. It can be used as that charge, but that wasn’t how I was using it. I was using it to describe atheism with respect to the first definition on wikipedia. You just read the whole thing quickly and received a confused understanding of nihilism.

Musycks on April 7, 2008, 10:40 PM

CZ, are you actually saying that Africans are emulating apes here? Is that what you mean? Are you saying their behaviour is different sexually from westerners?..
evidence please.

Mark Cerenzia on April 7, 2008, 11:25 PM

Dear God, you both are being ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with saying that tribes in Africa as well as in South America and in other similar places are referred to as “primitive”. Primitive merely denotes a civilization less developed than ours, and in many primitive societies, they is far more promiscuous. That is to say, more promiscuous than most people in western society, with the exception of the select few libertines you might find. I’m not denying there aren’t plenty of more civilized areas of Africa, but much of it isn’t. I’ve heard plenty of commentators on random learning channel use the same language and for the same reasons, i.e., sex.
I really get irritated by this oversensitivity of terminology that people have as though they are trying to show they have some overwhelming concern for certain people’s feelings. I’m not buying it in this case.

Musycks on April 8, 2008, 12:35 AM

Okay, but you seem very defensive at the same time? and you threw the word ape in there… so are the cities worse than the country? I don’t know, it’s a tough question and why I attempted to start another thread to deal with it specifically.
regardless, how does the amount of times you have sex correlate to the question of whether catholic teaching is helping prevent effective strategies in this area?

as to the nihilism argument, I’m out.

Matthew Wall on April 12, 2008, 1:29 PM

Cerenziam, your defense of faith and the Catholic church is counter-productiev. The idea that the Catholic church can’t be bothered to make concessions between dying peoples and their moral stance on condoms and promiscuity only furthers any claim against religion based on its immutability and its conflict with modern thinking. The Catholic church could very well say, “We believe that promiscuity is abhorrent but if you’re going to do it, please use condoms to prevent teen pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.” How is that contradictory at all? It’s not, but it does relieve the masses from some of the control of the Catholic church. And let’s face it, that’s the most important task at hand for religion.

Unlike reason, which allows moral progress, religion creates answers without evidence and gives itself precedence through “creation”, which is spurious in and of itself. When religion is faced with progress (the Earth travels around the sun!) it bars that thinking and punishes those courageous enough to look for answers. Once the church finally agrees to scientific discovery they completely ignore the implications that their concession makes, that their god is not infallible and their teachings are in fact incorrect. So the church avoids these situations as best as possible and makes as few progressive concessions as possible.

And the rise of teen pregnancy and STDs in America in the 90’s proves that it’s not just a “few libertines” who are running amok sexually. In fact, sexual promiscuity is probably on the rise and the Guttmacher Institute would argue that only 25% of the decrease in teen pregnancy can be attributed to abstinence. The other 75% is attributed to the proper use of contraceptives (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2004/02/19/index.html) . Can you argue that it would be better for abstinence to make up 100% of that decline while accepting three a higher rate of teen pregnancy?

Musycks on April 12, 2008, 8:24 PM

welcome LaPlace… this has been a long running and intricate thread.
I liked your contribution and agree it points out the dilemma for the catholic church as it slides into first world irrelevance, and seeks comfort numerically in the third. Notice how they released figures the other day saying Muslims were greater in number now than catholics? They did not include the other Xtian branches! a telling omission methinks.
thanks again and welcome to the Big T rollercoaster.

Mary Coyote on April 13, 2008, 2:19 AM

cerenziam: So, using your words: ‘tribes in Africa and South America are primitive because (they are like) apes:’ They enjoy MORE SEX. That is that THE PEOPLE of these continents are like apes.

Where a civilization, like ‘ours,’ is defined as more civilized because we have LESS SEX. That we are less like apes. That SEX defines a civilization and those in ‘our’ civilization that have more sex are ‘libertines;’ obviously, like apes. That MORALITY within a civilization is defined by SEX, otherwise you would not have used a morally loaded term like ‘libertines.’ (And this is the modus operandi of the Christian right: that morality is sexual.)

And ‘concern for (primitive) people’s feelings’ is, to you, considered ‘overwhelming.’ You won’t ‘buy it.’

So, if ‘primitive merely denotes a civilization less developed than ours,’ then that means that Canadian civilization, or French, or better yet, Norwegian, is obviously more civilized than American, who the whole world knows are brutes, bullies and sexually addicted and pre-occupied. Like apes. The Great Satan.

Don’t you see that your religious based chauvinistic prejudices are unacceptable obsolete and false? And that with that kind of brush you can paint anyone. In sociology, it has been long recognized that approaching a subject with such preconceived assumptions contaminates the results and renders all conclusions false.

Musycks on April 13, 2008, 11:46 PM

Coyote… welcome back… great thoughts.
When loaded terms like ‘ape’ are thrown about, the water gets even murkier. I find that reasoning obsolete and demeaning, and given the amount of babies born with the virus in Africa, obsene. Why ‘less developed equals more promiscous’ I’m not sure, but the corollary is a carry over of the medieval notions of women as satan’s tool, taking men’s minds off the ‘higher’ self.

But then the traditional churches have no great track record when it comes to the sex thing.

Mark Cerenzia on April 22, 2008, 2:35 AM

I have very little time to respond as I am very busy.

To LaPlac:

I won’t be able to respond to your entire post just yet, but your logic seems faulty in suggesting the Catholic church should say this:
“We believe that promiscuity is abhorrent but if you’re going to do it, please use condoms to prevent teen pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.”

Why not use the same logic for another act the church deems immoral:

“We believe that murder is abhorrent but if you’re going to do it, please use a sanitized wrench to prevent the spread of germs.”

I hope I’m not giving you all the wrong impression that I am now Catholic. I certainly sympathize with sects that have strong intellectual traditions, but I certainly wouldn’t call myself Catholic.

Coyote:

By primitive, I simply mean less developed. All the countries you named aren’t necessarily less developed but rather less successful. If Africa were the richest nation but continued to be ignorant of the germ theory, I might still consider it more primitive. I’ve heard plenty of people, namely those scholars on the History channel, refer to tribes this way, and I’m sorry you have a problem with it – I don’t.
You have yet to respond to my last post concerning nihilism in which object to much of your views on it.

PS Though you might like to know I just signed up for courses this fall and will be taking a course devoted entirely to Nietszche. Perhaps after it, I will be more perceptive about what he thought.