 |
Comments |
|
 | Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 3:56:57 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: perl10
E-mail: perl10ngck(at)gmail.com
I have always found it amusing how secular humanists like yourself like to quote from an obscure letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a church about the separation of church and state, and totally ignore his greatest achievement, the Declaration of Independence where he states that our unalienable rights come from our 'creator,' and when as president, turned the house of congress into a church for services on Sunday that he attended.
If you want to believe that our rights are created by man, and thus at the whim of man, then by all means, do so. Just don't use a great religious man out of context to justify your attacks to change what he intended for this nation.
perl10
"I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" - John Galt |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 4:29:09 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Perl10 wrote: "I have always found it amusing how secular humanists like yourself like to quote from an obscure letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a church about the separation of church and state, and totally ignore his greatest achievement, the Declaration of Independence where he states that our unalienable rights come from our 'creator,' and when as president, turned the house of congress into a church for services on Sunday that he attended."
Oh, do you mean the same Thomas Jefferson who wrote these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom
perl10: "If you want to believe that our rights are created by man, and thus at the whim of man, then by all means, do so."
Where did you get that absurd idea? Certainly not from anything that Diana wrote. Individual rights are not "created by man," nor are they "at the whim of man." They are principles of human action "based on natural facts, i.e. as a requirement of human life in society," to quote the way this point is expressed on the home page of the Coalition for Secular Government, and which Diana founded. You might want to consider informing yourself about the position you're attacking before attacking it.
"Just don't use a great religious man out of context to justify your attacks to change what he intended for this nation."
Thomas Jefferson was a deist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Religious_views
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm#1 |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 5:14:11 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Don Kenner
E-mail: dbkenner(at)earthlink.net
Ms. Hsieh,
I agree with everyting except the word "emerging." The Religious Left has been alive and active for for almost forty years now. The mainline Protestant churches, much of the American Catholic church, and the Black funamentalist churches are active with both their megaphone and their pocket book. Remember, it was the National (and World) Council of Churches that took up the cause of sending Elian Gonzalez back to Castro's paradise.
Who was in the streets supporting the Sandanistas and denouncing American involvement in Latin America during the 1980's? The Religious Left. They have a strong hold within the the Democratic Party and are responsible for much of the social justice propaganda that informs the Dem party platform. Whether it is opposing welfare reform or pimping for communist thugs, the Religious Left has a long and (ig)noble history of politicking. The mainstream media never use the term "Religious Left" because, like the term "Religious Right" it has come to have negative connotations. People on the left are caring; people on the right are fanatics. You know the drill.
A new book by Divinity School graduate and journalist Chris Hedges denounces "the new athiests" for both their lack of piety and their support for the war on terror. It's about time the Religious Left came out of the closet. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 5:26:25 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Luke Baggins
E-mail: lukebaggins(at)gmail.com
URL: http://bodybuildingelf.blogspot.com
I think that the Democratic party is fundamentally wrong and always will be. There was a time when the Republican party was a mixed bag with the balance being good. That time was the 1860's. I see the Republican party as redeemable and the Democrats as the party to be eventually replaced by something worthwhile. This is why I'm inclined to believe it would be a good thing if the jackasses were to win the blood-o-christ drinking crowd over to their side. Basically Jesus and communism belong together and good can come from a political scene that reflects this fact rather than obscuring it. The Republicans think that a big blood-o-the-lamb orgy is a practical election-winning strategy and they won't abandon it until it clearly stops working.
On the other hand, I think you're right that all Americans should be reminded of the radical secularism of our founders and should be encouraged to reject religion morally and insist on religious freedom (freedom FROM religion) politically. This makes me hesitate to encourage the democrats hopping on the crucifixion bandwagon, but for the reasons above, I'm still fairly sure that if I had it in my power, I would hand the jesus-vote off to the dems and encourage them to assume a kneeling position and stay that way. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 5:41:16 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Luke Baggins
E-mail: lukebaggins(at)gmail.com
URL: http://bodybuildingelf.blogspot.com
Oh I forgot to mention that I plan on voting Democrat because the Republicans will not dump Jesus if they keep winning with his blood all over their lips.
Oh and one factoid keeps bubbling to the top of my mind every time I get into this subject. The prosecutor of the Scopes monkey trial was William Jennings Bryan who was Sec. State under Woodrow Wilson. I think this reflects the fact that the Dems were at that time the party of submission to the will of god, but I have only that factoid to back that impression up. I eventually hope to dig up more and maybe another reader has some more in that vein to add. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 8:00:48 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: subzero
Diana,
I agree with your observation of the emergence of a religious right. I also see it as a positive occurrence. Maybe they will bring religious people from the Republican Party so the now barely existent capitalist Republican faction can re-emerge. If the Democrats become religious, anti-profits and religious guys like Mike Huckabee would be much more in sync with them, and hopefully those kind of politicians would no longer find the Republican party attractive. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 8:01:19 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: subzero
I meant emergence of a religious left |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 8:23:28 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Anonyme
There is nothing new under the sun about the Religious Left: the Christian church has been for well over 100 years the central conduit of American Progressivism. The 1960s, however, saw the emergence of the New Left -- the Port Huroners, the youth movements, the hippies, etc. -- who chose as their inspiration figures such as Che, and Fidel and Mao, etc. This New Left also recast Christian icons such as Jesus and Francis of Assisi in their own image (one thinks of the musicals Godspell, Pippin, Jesus Christ Superstar, etc.) Having burst into the national spotlight in a major way with the 1968 Democrat Convention, the New Left came to dominate the Democrat Party, the result of which was that the old-time Left with its church foundation was relegated to the sidelines (it was not silenced, but upstaged). Of course, some of those old-timers moved to the Republican Party and would play a central role in the rise of the Religious Right. But with the Obama candidacy (Mr. Obama -- the One, the Messiah -- is the bona fide Religious candidate in this election), the old-time Left has re-emerged. It has stepped out of the shadows and into the light of day. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 10:42:53 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Perl said: "If you want to believe that our rights are created by man, and thus at the whim of man..." Perl has presented the tired old false alternative: subjectivism via mysticism or subjectivism via collectivism. In doing so, Perl attempts to obliterate any notion of objectivism whatsoever. In other words, Perl tries to obliterate the fact that rights are *not* creations, but are the discovery of particular facts of existence - specifically the fact of the nature of (the identity of) man. As such, they are not a "whim of man" any more than breathing is a whim of man.
In other words, unlike the fantasy alternatives offered by Perl, both breathing and rights are facts of reality. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 14:33:08 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: perl10
E-mail: perl10ngck(at)gmail.com
The only point I am trying to make about our rights is about where Thomas Jefferson believed our rights came from, and using 'a wall separating church and state' from him is always used out of context. It does everyone a disservice in keeping us free by distorting our history and how his religion played an important role in creating 'Freedom of Religion' in our country.
The basic tenant now of secular humanists to say that to have freedom of religion we must have freedom from religion makes us all less free. One of the many things that I have always admired about Ayn Rand is that she recognized that you can't replace a something with a nothing, and so created her own religion of Objective. Can't we all agree that our religion, which are the values that we use to define who we are, shape how we approach politics, and thus are inseparable.
From my perspective, it is the secular humanists that are trying to impose their religion on me by saying I can't use my religion to direct how I want our government to conduct itself. There are real theocracies out there trying to impose their religion on us with Islamo-facisism, and secular humanism is not a viable defense against it. Just look at the Islamification of Europe. If you think demonizing me will in anyway keep you free, then the surrender to Islam is as inevitable here as it is there.
And please, don't through out the tired old 'Jefferson was a Deist' line as if it diminished his profound, and humbling relationship he had with God. Your use of it to dismiss what I say is a non-sequitur. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 14:56:38 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Doug H.
E-mail: radiotheatre[at]gmail[dot]com
"One of the many things that I have always admired about Ayn Rand is that she recognized that you can't replace a something with a nothing, and so created her own religion of Objective."
Why religion first? Why not solopsism or existentialism or any other philosophy? Religion is assumed by default to be the truth, thus anything else man does to make sense of his existence is mere ignorance of the true nature of God. Gotcha.
If this is your standard, you are simply replacing reality with dogma. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 15:10:08 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: perl10
E-mail: perl10ngck(at)gmail.com
No philosiphy defines who you are. That's the function of religion. It does not define truth, it defines what is true to you. Still, I don't get the point you're making, but then I don't expect to understand everything I encounter. Please try again. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 19:03:27 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: subzero
perl10 writes:
"And please, don't through out the tired old 'Jefferson was a Deist' line as if it diminished his profound, and humbling relationship he had with God."
If you only read the definition of what a deist is you'll find out how wrong you are. Since you are too lazy to go to Wikipedia, let me just say hat for the deists God created the world to function with the natural laws given to it at the moment of creation. After that, God never intervenes or communicates with man. Given this, how could Jefferson have a "profound, and humbling relationship he had with God"?
There are too many things wrongs in that post, but I'm not gonna answer all. Maybe someone else will take your subjective, and quite idiotic, definition of truth. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 19:49:54 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Grant Williams
E-mail: grant.d.williams at gmail
Perl,
If Jefferson's "wall" is out of context, why isn't the evidence for his theism out of context as well? Certainly evidence pointing to both conclusions about the man exists. Wouldn't the proper conclusion, then, be to conclude that Jefferson was inconsistent?
He was inconsistent. Even something as benign as Deism is inconsistent with a commitment to reason. That is the context. The task, then, is to determine what about the entire corpus of his thoughts is essential and what is not. Clearly, the essential difference - that which distinguises him (and his colleagues) from all other leaders up to that point - is that, ultimately, he was guided by reason. Any lip service by him to the contrary, sincere or not, is unimportant. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 20:36:52 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: perl10
E-mail: perl10ngck(at)gmail.com
His use of a wall seperating church and state was to reassure a particular congregation that the government would not meddle in the church's affairs. His concern was that there be no national church, not to keep religion out of government. Like I said at the top of the thread, he had church services conducted in the House of Congress while he was president.
Look, my beef with the original post is the lie it supports that some recent attack by right wingers is going on, when in reality, it is the secular humanists that want to redefine the intent of our founding fathers. If you want an atheist country, fine. Advocate for it. Honestly. If not, people like me will always be around to remind others of the truth, and how cowardly your arguments really are. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 20:45:19 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: perl10
E-mail: perl10ngck(at)gmail.com
subzero,
Wow!!! really!!! I never knew that about Deism. You sure showed me what for. I am humbled in the presence of your briliance. I'll make sure I read the almighty Wikipedia before I ever decide anything in the future. Thanx for your obviously well thought out advice. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 21:17:01 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Grant Williams
E-mail: grant.d.williams at gmail
Perl,
But my point still stands: why would Jefferson deem government interference in a particular church's affairs as a bad thing? Why was he opposed to the establishment of an official, government sanctioned church? What guiding principle made him hold these opinions?
The answer: his firm belief that human affairs can be, and should be, governed solely by reason. To support this, he recognized that reason must be exercised volitionally - and thus any interference in private religious belief, let alone a state religion, necessarily prevents the free exercise of reason. These positions, themselves, were discovered through emperical evidence and rational thought. They were not messages from God. They were not divinely inspired. Even if Jefferson himself thought they were, they were not.
I would not presume to speak for Ms. Hsieh officially, but am I confident that she would agree with me when I say that while yes, there is evidence proving the religiousity of the Founding Fathers (to whatever degree), taken as a whole, their approach was entirely atheist. It does not matter what they called it. It does not matter that when they closed their eyes and thought something through they thought they were communicating with God. They were not.
Sir, at least in regards to this issue, you are entirely incapable of independent analysis. You take a man at his word and any interpretation of it - pointing out his inconsistencies - is deemed as dishonest. I was under the impression that "honest" meant having one's words correspond to reality - not to how someone wants to view himself. If Jefferson wanted to believe that by establishing a government guided solely by reason he was establishing a Chrisian nation, fine; but that does not change the fact that such a nation is, in practice and in fact, not Christian at all.
The essence of Jefferson's soul, the essence of this country, is atheist. Unless one intentionally weighs evidence to the contrary entirely out of proportion to it's importance, there's no getting around it. No honest way, that is. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 0:30:14 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Perl advocates *irrationality* as the epistemological *standard* of government, claims the Founding Fathers *advocated* such irrationality as that standard, and condemns those who seek to defend rationality as the proper epistemology of law, justice, and government.
That certainly reveals all that need be known here. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 4:16:19 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: perl10
E-mail: perl10ngck(at)gmail.com
Grant,
When our Founding Fathers wrote these words "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." they actually meant something by that. I'm sorry it's so important for you to deny that.
BrianS,
I don't seek to condemn people who defend rationality, I only seek to condemn liars. A belief in God is not a rejection in rationality. Our Founding Fathers had very rational thoughts, founded in their religious beliefs, for creating the country we now enjoy. I know it is impossible for you to conceive that religious people could do such a thing. That's why you need to rewrite history to match your prejudices. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 5:15:27 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Perl: First of all, these issues are coming up in the context of a debate over whether America was or was not founded as a fundamentally Christian nation. In that context, whether Jefferson and other founders were Deists is absolutely relevant. To make this point clear, it is necessary to compare Deism, fundamentalist Christianity, and secularism, all from the perspective of which is more similar to which. If you examine these three positions, I think it's clear that even though Deism accepts belief in god (in a restricted sense), it is far more similar to secularism than it is to serious or fundamentalist Christianity.
Deism was as close to atheism as most men were willing to go in the years prior to Darwin. That's because the question of "who created man" was still considered to be a compelling question that required but lacked an answer. Observing the lack of evidence for god's existence in everyday experience, the Deists "pulled god back" to the point of that still unresolved question. It wasn't until the 20th century and the discoveries of modern biology that atheism began to become an intellectually acceptable position. And that's also why the fundamentalists are so eager to manufacture attacks on evolution to discredit it -- in order to reverse that historical trend.
I really don't see any basis for you to claim Jefferson as a "brother in spirit" just because you and he both professed a belief in a creator. He was not a serious Christian, but a rationalist and a secularist despite that belief in a creator -- as the whole of his writings and his political achievements make abundantly clear. Indeed, the very use of the word "creator" instead of "god" refutes the idea that his writing in the Declaration was intended to express support for a Christian nation. As I see it, that very choice *proves* that he was a Deist in spirit, rather than a religious Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 5:29:19 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Perl wrote: "Our Founding Fathers had very rational thoughts, founded in their religious beliefs, for creating the country we now enjoy."
No, those rational thoughts were *not* founded in their religious beliefs. They were founded in Enlightenment philosophy. Anyone who graduated from High School in the United States was taught about the influence of the Enlightenment on the political, social and philosophical thought of the time, both in Europe and in America. (Or at least, they were a few decades ago when I was in High School, and when education hadn't become quite as dumbed-down as it is today.) Certainly anyone who has studied the history of that period knows it as well. I'm sorry, but for someone who professes to condemn liars, you're very loose with the truth on this issue -- or at least, very misinformed about it. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 7:44:25 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Grant Williams
E-mail: grant.d.williams at gmail
Peel wrote: "When our Founding Fathers wrote these words 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...' they actually meant something by that. I'm sorry it's so important for you to deny that."
The word "something" is a contraction of the words "some" and "thing." What thing, exactly, did Jefferson refer to? Not, what did he *mean* to refer to, but what in reality did her refer to?
I am fully aware of the fact that people often are not aware of what they advocate. Yes, it's true that Jefferson thought that he was carrying out God's will by enshrining individual rights into law, but in fact he was merely recognizing man's nature. It matters not what you, or I, or Jefferson, or anyone else thinks we are doing when we're doing it - in fact, in reality, on Earth what we're doing is what we are doing. And, as has already been pointed out in other comments, what Jefferson was doing when he wrote those words was applying his knowledge of Enlightenment philosophy to the practical political issues of the day.
Leonard Peikoff, in his "DIM Hypothesis", has identified what it is that you are doing with this question. You are being a "D" in regards to it. That is, you're disintegrating. Instead of looking at the evidence as an integrated whole, and applying it to previously formulated definitions of "ratioalist" and "theist" (themselves formulated by a thorough evaluation of evidence), what you are doing is attempting to reduce the truth of a matter to a panoply of disconnected - often contradictory - opinions, beliefs, statements, feelings, and any number of other random bits of information. As if truth - essence - is identified through survey, or appeal to authority, instead of observation and inference. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 9:04:11 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: perl10
E-mail: perl10ngck(at)gmail.com
Since everyone here is so much smarter than me, let me ask a simple question. You have two countries; America and France. Both go through a revolution at the end of the Eighteenth century, and both are influenced by the 'Enlightenment philosophy'. One country, ours, which was a nothing on the world's stage at the time, begins a steady climb to become the most powerful nation on Earth. The other, France, a major world power at the time, immediately descends into a blood bath, and as far as I am concerned, has still not recovered. Please explain the disparate outcomes, if the Enlightenment philosphy is the only thing that deserves credit for our success. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 9:26:32 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Grant Williams
E-mail: grant.d.williams at gmail
Perl,
French egalitarianism is not a rational idea. Neither was the rational-ism (read: irrationalism) of people like Robespierre.
"If virtue be the spring of a popular government in times of peace, the spring of that government during a revolution is virtue combined with terror: virtue, without which terror is destructive; terror, without which virtue is impotent. Terror is only justice prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country. … The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny". - Robespierre, 5, February, 1794
Let's briefly analyze this prime bit of rational sounding nonsense. The beginning is fair enough: the guilty should be punished. The government should be afraid of it's people. Very American, actually. Things like the Second Ammendment and the words "alter or abolish" in the Declaration come to mind. But what happened in France? Well, they were egalitarians - so after awhile it wasn't just the guilty who were losing their heads. Everyone was losing their heads. Some literally, but virtually everyone figuratively. Next, there is the very Marxist notion that virtue - commonly associated with calm, methodical, deliberate action in regards to justice - and terror - blind, fury (even if understandable, and even if directed at the right people) - go hand in hand. This is dialectical materialism. Thesis (self-control), antithesis (blind passion), synthesis (Napolean - and all of French history thereafter). Finally, for good measure, there is a find bit of moral subjectivism to cap off Robespierre's thought. "The despotism of liberty against tyranny." How, if words have exact definitions, can liberty be despotic in any way whatsoever? Suppressing tyranny, first through revolution and then through republican government, is not some sort of subjective preference on the part of the people. Tyrants did not, do not, and never will have any legitimate right to be tyrants. Tyranny is not simply another, viable form of government which could exist if it weren't for those pesky "Despots of liberty." The French are still famous for their moral relativism. It's what underlies their (deserved) reputation for being push overs militarily.
This is the kind of nonsense - a commitment to reason divorced from emperical evidence - which caused the French to go so far off course from the spirit of the Enlightenment. American, however - owing mostly to the wildness of the North American continent - were never allowed to stray too far from emperical evidence. The requirements of survival didn't let them. So they were able to retain their concern for this Earth. Individual responsibility and liberty was never allowed to become floating abstractions to be perverted by demogouges. The consequences of a lack of it were seen too clearly in every day life. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 10:28:41 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Perl: the difference that you ask about is the largely due to the influence of the ideas of Jean-Jaques Rousseau on the end of the French Enlightenment, and on the French Revolution. Although he is frequently (and I would argue, incorrectly) referred to as an "Enlightenment thinker," Rousseau's ideas were profoundly antagonistic to the principles of the Enlightenment in many ways. He was certainly not a principled advocate of reason in the tradition of the Enlightenment. He was a profound influence on some of the most evil principals of the French Revolution, such as Robespierre, as well as on Kant, the philosopher who "officially" brought the Enlightenment to an end. It was Rousseau and Kant, partly though intermediaries such as Hegel and Marx, who set the stage for the rise of modern totalitarianism -- of which the French Revolution was a foretaste.
So my answer to your question, basically, is that the American Revolution was influenced by Locke and the Founding Fathers -- who were, by and large, consistent advocates of Enlightenment reason. The French Revolution took place in the midst of a philosophical struggle between genuine Enlightenment thinkers on the one hand -- such as Voltaire -- and irrationalists like Rousseau on the other, who repudiated Enlightenment reason and replaced it with the beginnings of modern collectivism. Unfortunately, in the French Revolution, the latter won. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 11:42:03 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
I said: "Perl advocates *irrationality* as the epistemological *standard* of government, claims the Founding Fathers *advocated* such irrationality as that standard, and condemns those who seek to defend rationality as the proper epistemology of law, justice, and government."
Perl responded: "I don't seek to condemn people who defend rationality, I only seek to condemn liars. A belief in God is not a rejection in rationality. Our Founding Fathers had very rational thoughts, founded in their religious beliefs, for creating the country we now enjoy. I know it is impossible for you to conceive that religious people could do such a thing. That's why you need to rewrite history to match your prejudices."
I wonder why perl needs to create a straw man here? Could it be to evade addressing the point that he advocates irrationality as the epistemological standard of government? Could it be to evade addressing the fact that the Founding Fathers did NOT advocate such irrationality as that standard? Could it be to evade the fact that he (necessarily) defends his irrational epistemological standard for government by attacking the rational standard for it? And could it be he throws about such pejorative terms as liar and coward because he himself is one here? All this would indeed explain his leaving the *actual* statements made unaddressed while he instead attacks an imaginary foe.
And THAT is the fundamental to consider when dealing with perl here - ie knowing that he accepts the *imaginary* (arbitrary - unreal) in place of reality. perl accepts an imaginary consciousness, imaginary 'facts', and imaginary arguments, over actual consciousness', actual facts, and actual arguments.
Again - 'nuff said. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 12:00:32 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: B. Dietz
E-mail: dietzint34(at)yahoo.com
Grant Williams writes:
"American, however - owing mostly to the wildness of the North American continent - were never allowed to stray too far from emperical evidence. The requirements of survival didn't let them. So they were able to retain their concern for this Earth. Individual responsibility and liberty was never allowed to become floating abstractions to be perverted by demogouges. The consequences of a lack of it were seen too clearly in every day life."
Tony Donadio writes:
"Deism was as close to atheism as most men were willing to go in the years prior to Darwin. That's because the question of "who created man" was still considered to be a compelling question that required but lacked an answer. Observing the lack of evidence for god's existence in everyday experience, the Deists "pulled god back" to the point of that still unresolved question. It wasn't until the 20th century and the discoveries of modern biology that atheism began to become an intellectually acceptable position. And that's also why the fundamentalists are so eager to manufacture attacks on evolution to discredit it -- in order to reverse that historical trend."
Both of these are excellent points. There are such intelligent replies in the NoodleFood comments section. Thanks to both Grant and Tony. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 14:47:34 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: David Blankenau
E-mail: Blankenstein0582(at)aol.com
Perl10 wrote,"No philosophy defines who you are. That's the function of religion. It does not define truth, it defines what is true to you."
Aside from this being a subjectivist viewpoint, keep in mind that religion (ALL religions) is (are) a primitive, pre-enlightenment form of philosophy. Once reason was discovered to be Man's means of knowledge, religion should have slowly faded away altogether. Unfortunately, it seems to be more entrenched than ever, with both political parties seeming to embrace it.
You're right that philosophy does not define who you are; it merely shapes your choices and actions (or lack of same) as it does for an entire society. It was a secular philosophy that guided the choices and actions of our Founding Fathers; we should be damned glad of it! |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 23:08:54 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
perl10, you said:
"A belief in God is not a rejection in rationality."
What do you think reason is? |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
