Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on June 26, 2009 by Allahpundit
“J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionary biologist and a founder of population genetics, understood that science is by necessity an atheistic discipline. As Haldane so aptly described it, one cannot proceed with the process of scientific discovery if one assumes a ‘god, angel, or devil’ will interfere with one’s experiments. God is, of necessity, irrelevant in science.
Faced with the remarkable success of science to explain the workings of the physical world, many, indeed probably most, scientists understandably react as Haldane did. Namely, they extrapolate the atheism of science to a more general atheism.
While such a leap may not be unimpeachable it is certainly rational, as Mr. McGinn pointed out at the World Science Festival. Though the scientific process may be compatible with the vague idea of some relaxed deity who merely established the universe and let it proceed from there, it is in fact rationally incompatible with the detailed tenets of most of the world’s organized religions. As Sam Harris recently wrote in a letter responding to the Nature editorial that called him an ‘atheist absolutist,’ a ‘reconciliation between science and Christianity would mean squaring physics, chemistry, biology, and a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning with a raft of patently ridiculous, Iron Age convictions.’”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 8 9 10 11 Next »
Really? What’s the evidence that people have inherent rights?
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Yes, but historically speaking there were many countries that if one wasn’t a Christian (in name), they enjoyed a life of 2nd class citizenry.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Yes, especially considering that there are certain people on this board who clearly know that atheism is a illogical and fatally flawed ideology, yet continue arguing for it regardless..
MaximusConfessor on June 27, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Yeah, offset somewhat by the fact that there have been countries in which if one was a Christian, one could enjoy a nice life in a labor camp, or could enjoy a nice execution.
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 10:58 PM
So, you want to share some ice cream, but first you want me to accept that because some people use religion to bolster claims of absolute power, there’s something inherently wrong with believing in God or Christianity or my Catholic faith.
No dessert until after your vegetables. And where are your table manners tonight? Hmmmm! Yum! Yum! This ice cream is sooooo good!
** slurping sounds **
Loxodonta on June 27, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Actually, the “Christ like ideal” is not really subject to interpretation, and no tyrant should ever use it for any kind of unquestioned authority. Christ died for this world. That is the ultimate in a selfless life. Very few people have come close to it. I can think of a few that truly lived that selfless of a life . . . St. Francis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Mother Teresa, Mark Buntain . . . but they are few and far between. I don’t think I will ever atain that level of selflessness.
If some tyrant wants to die for “his people”, then maybe then he will understand who Christ really was. If he is truly that selfless, I doubt he would be a tyrant.
Voter from WA State on June 27, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Well, I wouldn’t say it was offset, I think we should recognize the difference between man organized Christianity and the teachings of Christ.
That said, I personally believe that in the net, Christianity (even some organized) greatly benefited the world.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 11:01 PM
I think that I heard that an average of 50 people are killed every day because of their Christian faith. Right now there is a woman in Pakistan who has been charged with blasphemy charges and faces a possible death sentence. Her crime . . . she told some Moslem women that Christ died for their sins. There are a lot of places around this world where freedom is just wishful thinking.
Voter from WA State on June 27, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Yes, a tyrant could use any pretext, but appealing to religious authority gets you some added benefits. Unless you forgot your history, European theocracies were ruled by king who governed by divine right. This was not without justification in the bible. In the bad old days of theocracies, defying a king also meant defying god.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Hmmm… maybe we’ll make Allah proud and get this thread up to 1000.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Why do you need evidence?
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Hypothetically yes, but the reality is that religious ideas are constantly questioned and nobody in any major religious group has anywhere near the necessary authority. The practical threat of a religious tyrany is miniscule.
Perhaps Mr Kim of North Korea has got close to what you suggest with his own personal cult but even there I suspect most of the persuasive influence is delivered with a gun barrel rather than the ideology. The Jim Jones cult did succeed but it was small and self-destructive.
The practical difficulties for this misuse of ‘religion’ are huge. Even the Iranians mullahs are failing to pull it off, despite trying for twenty years in a country that already leaned (and still leans) towards their point of view.
Religion doesn’t really lend itself to mass manipulation in the way it is often accused of doing. Something like nationalism is a far more effective, easier to use, tool for tyrany than is religion.
YiZhangZhe on June 27, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Because it would follow in the Scientific Spirit?
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Working on it. But let’s just make sure we are talking about the same Allah…
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Well, I was referring to AP…
I really don’t care about making the other allah proud.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 11:16 PM
I think the cabin crew have gone to sleep. 900+ comments and this thread still isn’t in the “top picks” column. Where’s the respect for dedicated blog posters?
YiZhangZhe on June 27, 2009 at 11:20 PM
At first I was going to disagree… then I kept reading…
I think you make some valid points. Further, even when Europeans were “using Christianity,” to gain power, this was often more the Vatican whereas some of the Kings found themselves wanting to challenge the authority of the Vatican in order to get more power. Now, does this mean that the European Monarch’s weren’t using religion themselves? No, but it does illustrate your point about how using religion to gain power may not be the most efficient way.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 11:20 PM
@McCainBlogette You’re not controversial. You’re a nice girl!about 1 hour ago from twhirl in reply to McCainBlogette
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 11:22 PM
I don’t. I’m not an atheist. ;)
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 11:23 PM
What do you want for dessert? We have ice cream.
Loxodonta on June 27, 2009 at 11:27 PM
The only places in Europe that even really came close to being “theocracies” were Calvinist Geneva and the brief Anabaptist reign of terror in Münster. Otherwise it was the usual might-makes-right stuff with religious patina.
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 11:28 PM
I just disagree the threat of religious tyranny is minuscule. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, Palestine, etc as recent examples of totalitarian theology. Then there are the more secular tyrants who appeal to religion to keep their population in control: Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc
That the current examples of religious tyrants are all Muslim does not excuse the past of Christianity that has similar examples throughout Europe.
Agreed that nationalism is probably as large, if not larger, of a danger than religion (and I would argue the same forlack of faith). However previous to nation states, city states experienced the same amount of riotous upheaval without appeals to nationalism. Savonarola had a flipping good time burning anything he could in the name of god–the original bonfire of the vanities.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Although I am no personal fan of Calvin, I don’t think you can totally put all the blame on him. I’d say that much of Europe had some form of a Theocracy… the Holy Roman Empire comes to mind…
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Your just deserts.
Loxodonta on June 27, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Man… I used to be able to eat Gelato at my old college… Not any more. You’re an evil, evil 1/2 Christian ;)
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 11:34 PM
74 more posts to go… then AP better buy us all gelato.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Inherent rights are “inherent” to the extent the law permits. I think the evidence is overwhelming that granting the types of inherent rights as has been done in the US Constitution leads to a more productive and prosperous society. I’ve not seen any evidence that would suggest more restrictions on the rights of the people helps society.
If you do not need proof because of your faith, tell me what basis does your faith contain for inherent rights. The founders of our country made religious appeals, but they sure didn’t cite scripture to justify our freedoms as inherent rights. They called them “self evident truths” in our declaration of independence.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Calvin was the top dog in Geneva for decades. Charles V was maybe in theory ruling by “divine right”, but the Holy Roman Empire was hardly a theocratic entity. The Italian city-states were firmly Catholic, but I wouldn’t call any of them “theocracies”, except for maybe Florence when Savonarola was briefly calling the shots. Theocracy implies rule by clergy.
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 11:38 PM
That seriously got me hungry. I’m tempted to send you some Scarf Stylin’ Nancy Pictures.
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 11:38 PM
But a country doesn’t have to be a full on theocracy to be oppressive through religious authority. Just ask people under Sadam’s Iraq, Syria, Egypts. None of them really could be called theocracies, but they use/used religious authority to justify their rule.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Ever read Locke?
Eyas on June 27, 2009 at 11:44 PM
None of these are examples of what you originally claimed, namely:
They are not using the unquestioned authority of religion, because (a) the religion is strongly questioned and (b) the real persuasion is being done with threats of violence.
They might be using their religious cloak to justify whatever they do, but the religion is not what is persuading everybody else to toe the line.
YiZhangZhe on June 27, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Rights are “self-evident” after certain things are taken on faith. A great historian such as Meinecke could say your “self-evident rights” outside those granted by the state are not at all evident to him. Demonstrate your “evidence” that such rights do indeed exist. The evidence is also overwhelming that a state run without the concept of individual rights can be pretty damn efficient. “Helps society” is pretty vague. “Help” could mean more power to the state.
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 11:48 PM
First, I was careful to say
Second, from what I know, a theocracy is simply a form of government that is subject to a religious authority.
Who controlled the Papal States?
And the Holy Roman Empire? You yourself say that the Emperors ruled by “divine right.” To me, it’s not clear that this wouldn’t make them sort of religious authorities.
Finally, what about England? Didn’t Henry VII become the Supreme Head of the Church of England?
So, It would seem that there were many theocratic elements in Europe. That said, that doesn’t mean this was horrible. What perhaps was, was the lack of religious freedom. Why was their no religious freedom?
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Yes, but even Locke doesn’t provide irrefutable evidence that there is some concrete thing as “inherent individual rights”. Otherwise, Locke would be scripture.
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 11:50 PM
All’s fair in love and war. I am now armed.
Loxodonta on June 27, 2009 at 11:53 PM
No God? Says who?
Wanna make a bet on your soul? Read Pascal’s wager.
happy2behere on June 27, 2009 at 11:53 PM
The Queen is still head of the CoE. Is the UK a theocracy?
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 11:54 PM
You may think that that convincing doesn’t work, that the real convincing is done by violence. I argue they reinforce each other. Propaganda after all does work. And what of the people who carry out that violence? Don’t they need convincing/an excuse?
Islamic suicide bombings, Nazi appeals to antisemitism, Shintoism’s appeal to militarism and superiority of the Japanese race, all these caused people to do evil things.
BryanS on June 27, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Well, that’s for the English to decide. I thought they changed it though…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Head_of_the_Church_of_England
Upstater85 on June 27, 2009 at 11:58 PM
As did secular appeals to free the proletariat. So?
ddrintn on June 27, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Practically, no the UK is no longer a theocracy of much force. But the Church of England is still funded by the state. As is coincidentally religion still funded by the state in France.
BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 12:00 AM
No, it’s for you to decide. The topic is “theocracy”. QEII is the “Supreme Governor” of the CoE. Is the UK (or at least, England) a theocracy?
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Practically, it would mean that the monarch (or other head of state) is giving doctrinal guidance in matters of religion.
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:02 AM
^ It’s not about state funding of churches. That stretches the concept of “theocracy” out of all proportion.
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:03 AM
So, secular appeals to free the proletariat did not appeal to an outrage to prove god did not exist. God, or the lack thereof, had nothing to do with convincing communists to bomb things. It was the appeal to free the proletariat itself that motivated people.
BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Well, I would say there is a difference between Head and Governor, but as Bryan points out, the CoE is funded by the State.
If you made me decide, I’d say that England is still a Theocracy. Same would go for many European nations with a large secular population.
Whereas in the United States, we are most definitely not a theocracy. There are no if’s, and’s or but’s about it; however we have a larger religious/faith practicing population than Europe.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Oh, but it did. Religion was one of those institutions thought to be holding the lower classes captive.
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Well… Sarkozy wants to ban the Hijab…
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:05 AM
So what’s your definition of a Theocracy? I gave you mine.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Well, when were the lower classes allowed to read the Bible in their own vernacular tongue?
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:08 AM
You would call the UK a theocracy, while only about 40% or so of the people there even believe in God? The US isn’t, while 70% or so of the population is theistic? I don’t see how that works. If the UK is a theocracy, then you would think there would be things like compulsory church attendance.
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:08 AM
I don’t think that argument held any sway. Most of the religious were just secretly so after crackdowns against religion. Communism was just trying to outdo democracy movements who argued against theocracies–all part of Marx’s deluded march of history.
BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 12:09 AM
Well, I never said a theocracy had too be full of believers. I hesitate to call the the UK a theocracy, but you seem to think that the Elizabeth II has the same religious authority that Henry VIII had. So if this really is the case (again, you might have to ask the English), then I guess the UK is a theocracy.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:11 AM
A theocracy is a state in which the head of state is also the religious leader, who has the last word in matters of doctrine and practice, and who has the power to compel obedience to religious tenets. Religion reigns supreme.
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:11 AM
State financial support of a religion–not sure how much more blatant of a theocracy you could get, however soft peddled it is–is a pretty clear cut sign you have a theocracy.
BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 12:12 AM
So Great Britain, for example :?)
BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 12:13 AM
No, Henry VIII was your example. I just wonder how the UK was a theocracy because Henry VIII was head of the CoE, but it isn’t anymore even though the monarch is still the Supreme Governor of the CoE. I don’t think anyone in the UK would call their country a theocracy.
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:13 AM
So in this definition, I wouldn’t say the UK is currently a theocracy, but if Henry VIII’s England, The Holy Roman Empire, and the Papal States weren’t, then they were borderline.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Religion hardly reigns supreme in a country that has empty churches, does it?
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:14 AM
I’ve enjoyed reading most of the posts in the latter part of this thread. Thanks for the insights, history and humor. I’m leaving now, but I’m making a list and checking it twice, so be good for goodness sake.
Loxodonta on June 28, 2009 at 12:15 AM
And why is that? Perhaps it’s because the Supreme Governor of the CoE no longer holds any religious authority and does not attempt to control religion in England – it has morphed into a titular head. Do you really believe that Henry VIII’s title was simply a formality? I think many religious groups would disagree.
You also never answered my question on Christian Europe.
Why was their no freedom of religion?
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:17 AM
OK, later man.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:17 AM
Correct, by that definition. But would you argue that a country like Syria is not a theocracy? Certainly Bashar Al-Assad could not be considered , as a secular leader, the person with last say of doctrine. But religion definitely reigns supreme in Syria.
BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Really? Would you say Germany is a theocracy? Angela Merkel is merely the tool of the Lutheran and Catholic churches?
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:20 AM
You can be executed for converting away from Islam in Syria. Can the same be said for converts away from Christianity in Germany?
BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 12:21 AM
No, Syria isn’t a theocracy. Just because a population is religious doesn’t make a country a theocracy.
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:22 AM
You’re swerving. State funding (according to you) = theocracy.
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Well then the question posed by Upstater85 regarding Europe’s lack of religious freedom seems to be answered. You can be compelled to have religious views, and not live in a theocracy.
BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 12:24 AM
What religious authority did Henry VIII have? Could he have said, “we’re now all going to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster because I say so”?
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Yes, and this is what I find more disconcerting about Old Europe. If a country wants to call itself a theocracy, this doesn’t mean that the citizens will have no freedom to practice their own beliefs or lack thereof. But Europe went beyond this.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Not really–just wasn’t sure that Germany still funds it’s churches directly. Assuming that’s the case now, then it would in fact be a theocracy–however loosely enforced.
In my mind, a theocracy involves compelled support of a religious view you do not support. Supporting a particular church through taxation is one way to compel support.
BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Uh… don’t make light of it.
I’m thinking back to how many people were killed more or less because of their loyalty to an opposing religious point of view.
Henry’s own children fought over such things.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:28 AM
So France is a theocracy. A country in which, I assure you, religion does not reign supreme.
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:29 AM
I’m not making light of it. I’m giving a concrete example. Henry VIII, in order to have been a theocratic ruler, had to have been the final word in matters of faith. The national priest in addition to being the secular ruler. Within a couple of generations of his death, England was a Tower of Babel of sects.
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:32 AM
Charles relied largely on the Star Chamber and Court of High Commission to implement these policies. Although these institutions had existed for some time, Charles adapted them as instruments to persecute the Puritans. They were courts under the control of the King, not the Parliament, and were therefore capable of convicting and imprisoning people who had not violated any law passed by Parliament, but were nevertheless guilty of displeasing the King.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Yes, as ridiculous as it sounds. There is compelled support of the Catholic church within France. They could easily withdraw that support and do away with that classification overnight. There is a reason Sarkozy got away with enacting laws to ban the Hijab in schools. In France, there is no freedom of religion.
BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Right, but were Charles’ motivations religious or political? Which was most important?
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:35 AM
You’re right, it’s ridiculous.
And with that, time to hit the hay.
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Well, Henry did wield his power to burn heretics at the stake.
Well, even with her flaws, I think his daughter Elizabeth had much to do with this. Even under her, I don’t think England was magically not a theocracy.
At the same time, a new Act of Uniformity was passed, which made attendance at church and the use of an adapted version of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer compulsory
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:40 AM
The same could be said of Popes… As far as I know, the Vatican is still considered at Theocracy.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:40 AM
at = a
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Have a good night. Perhaps you can pray that you never wake up in a country one day that compels you to believe in a faith you disagree with (just one you agree with). I’m glad we live in a country that does not compel faith.
BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 12:45 AM
Even though I know you are gone, maybe someone else could answer this. What were/are the Theocracies were the leader had religious motivations and not political motivations?
Personally, I would say perhaps Moses’s Israelites and the modern Vatican. There are those that would even disagree with this.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Amen.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:48 AM
I think this would make a great topic for AP to post sometime. I’m guessing cons would go 50/50 on this.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:51 AM
Cardinal Richelieu sents lots of people to their deaths as well. It was a matter ultimately of state, not of religion. Think of the differences between a Henry VIII and an Ayatollah Khamenei. I don’t think you can say Henry thought of religion as much more than a tool of state. His main concern (and that of Elizabeth) was the preservation of the state first, not the absolute purity of the faith. Under a theocracy, the Archbishop of Canterbury would have ruled the state as well.
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:54 AM
I don’t think you could separate the two. One could argue that the Vatican only uses politics to advance religious goals. But it’s hard to not notice that Pope John Paul II’s religious goals coincided with the political goal of killing communism. Which was more important, politics or faith? I would say both–the success of Christianity relied on ending communism.
BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 12:54 AM
(Sorry, had to get in a last word. Later.)
ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:55 AM
Now if that Asse-Hatte ruled, we’d all be folked.
BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 12:56 AM
And perhaps this is true. But then again, I don’t truly believe Khamenei wants a theocracy for the sake of religion. Do you really believe this? My understanding is that he’s not near the Islamic scholar as his predecessor.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:56 AM
You raise a good point. Was this bad? In my book, no. But we should be honest about it, and not try to pretend he’s someone sitting on a golden cloud only thinking about how to make Catholicism better and more pure.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:59 AM
You assume that I would let you have the last word ;)
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 1:00 AM
That’s what I’ve read. I’ve also read of speculation that Khamenei Sr is pulling this to cement his Jr to take over hte reigns. Looks almost like a hereditary monarchy–in fact a criticism coming from Mousavi in recent days.
BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 1:00 AM
So, boys and girls, have we come to an agreement on faith yet? :)
(I love these threads)
Why little green footballs doesn’t allow these threads speaks of foolish decisions (and little faith). As many disagreements as we have, I’m always happy to see the mature behavior from posters (for the most part).
Skidd on June 28, 2009 at 1:03 AM
At this hour, only the mature posters remain ;)
The TRUE CHRISTIAN poster is nowhere to be seen…
I thought it was funny that he kept attacking Bryan, but then letting the other FALSE CHRISTIANS know just how superior he was
Haha
Way to win an argument.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 1:05 AM
Yep yep
I’m more or less of the opinion that Theocracies are in general not for purifying religion for the sake of religion. I fully believe the individual and the individual religious bodies are capable of doing this without the help of the state.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 1:07 AM
This particular outcome was good. In general,giving religious authority political power is dangerous. The religion wielding that power is not planning on doing anything evil, but when the only question that needs answering is whether it benefits the faith, bad things happen.
BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 1:09 AM
Well, I don’t think this is something unique to religious authorities.
I think giving one man too much power (even if he has the best intentions) can lead to bad things.
Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 1:11 AM
Heh…when Gaia freezes over.
I post over at LGF from time to time. The will allow a fresh fish or two to argue the religious point of view–but some of the more heated comments from the thread this evening would have resulted in some bannings. I think over the top obnoxiousness is sometimes as illustrative as straightforward argument.
BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 8 9 10 11 Next »