A World without Religion?

[AnimalSpirits]

Incidentally, a vomitorium is the functional equivalent of what you are proposing.

Are you going to tell us here on this rather public forum that you see nothing wrong with this activity?

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-01-24-76.jpg

A vomitirium is the Latin term for a stadiums entry/exit way- the idea that Rome built places specifically for vomiting is a myth. Vomitoria were for vomiting (verb) people (direct object), not vomiting (attributive verb) people.

Moreover, we already discussed why I’m not a fan of bulimia- it’s exceedingly bad for your health. The idea was to construct a hypothetical drug that fixed weight gain like the pill fixes pregnancy.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But I haven’t rejected objective reality, just that any sort of moral code exists in that reality. God still exists or he doesn’t, in an objective sense.

That’s very true.

And if God does exist in an objective sense, it stands to reason we have every reason to have a friendly relationship with him. Which is the main reason why I think the world will never be without religion. The desire for God is deep seated in all of us, experienced by some and suppressed by others. In no future world would it be possible for those who oppose God to impose their conviction on others who desire him, just as those who experience God could never impose their conviction on those who don’t.

Sweden, arguably the most atheist nation in Europe, is also in my opinion the most conformist. All allegiance is to the nanny State. Yet the desire for God in Sweden, though long opposed, has not stopped Sweden from discovering that the fastest growing religion in Sweden is Catholicism.

The pendulum swings, does it not?

Just when the Swedes thought they had banished not only Catholicism first, and then Lutheranism, back again stirs the search for Christ through his Catholic Church.

They used to say liberal Europe follows more liberal Sweden. Maybe Europe will yearn again to follow Sweden by rediscovering Catholicism?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

That’s very true.

And if God does exist in an objective sense, it stands to reason we have every reason to have a friendly relationship with him. Which is the main reason why I think the world will never be without religion. The desire for God is deep seated in all of us, experienced by some and suppressed by others. In no future world would it be possible for those who oppose God to impose their conviction on others who desire him, just as those who experience God could never impose their conviction on those who don’t.

Sweden, arguably the most atheist nation in Europe, is also in my opinion the most conformist. All allegiance is to the nanny State. Yet the desire for God in Sweden, though long opposed, has not stopped Sweden from discovering that the fastest growing religion in Sweden is Catholicism.

The pendulum swings, does it not?

Just when the Swedes thought they had banished not only Catholicism first, and then Lutheranism, back again stirs the search for Christ through his Catholic Church.

They used to say liberal Europe follows more liberal Sweden. Maybe Europe will yearn again to follow Sweden by rediscovering Catholicism?

Sweden’s population is 2% Catholic- smaller than the Muslim share. Small groups can experience greater percent growth than large ones, because the base amount is in the denominator. It could be the case that this isn’t Swedes rediscovering Catholicism, but rather migrants showing up and passing their religion down to their children.

Irreligion is still pretty dominant in Sweden, with something like 18% or less professing belief in a god/gods. No reason to believe the pendulum is swinging back, at least based on the “fast growing” statistic.

 

[PRmerger]

A vomitirium is the Latin term for a stadiums entry/exit way- the idea that Rome built places specifically for vomiting is a myth.

Irrelevant. I never made any reference to ancient Rome building such structures.

Vomitoria were for vomiting (verb) people (direct object), not vomiting (attributive verb) people.

Understood.

Moreover, we already discussed why I’m not a fan of bulimia- it’s exceedingly bad for your health. The idea was to construct a hypothetical drug that fixed weight gain like the pill fixes pregnancy.

And I didn’t mention bulimia here. Bulimia is an eating disorder.

I simply offered vomiting after eating as the functional equivalent of your hypothetical. It is something we need not examine as a hypothetical–it exists in real life.

Would you object to this type of activity when one wishes to “eat, drink and be merry”?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

And I didn’t mention bulimia here. Bulimia is an eating disorder.

Characterized by eating a lot and then vomiting.

I simply offered vomiting after eating as the functional equivalent of your hypothetical. It is something we need not examine as a hypothetical–it exists in real life.

Not equivalent due to health concerns.

Would you object to this type of activity when one wishes to “eat, drink and be merry”?

Yes, because they’re risking tooth decay, electrolyte imbalances that can lead to death, and the destruction to their esophagus.

 

[PRmerger]

Characterized by eating a lot and then vomiting.

The disorder is a mental illness with physical manifestations, Animal.

I am not talking about a mental illness. I am simply asking about the behavior of eating and then vomiting.

Not equivalent due to health concerns.

Yes, because they’re risking tooth decay, electrolyte imbalances that can lead to death, and the destruction to their esophagus.

Only if repetitive.

If your daughter does this occasionally, say, once a month, would you be opposed this?

Or let’s say she does it only 2 times a year, but she’s really invested in the idea that she can eat whatever she likes and then vomit it up because she doesn’t want the calories–are you opposed to this in principle?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Or let’s say she does it only 2 times a year, but she’s really invested in the idea that she can eat whatever she likes and then vomit it up because she doesn’t want the calories–are you opposed to this in principle?

If someone can credibly say that it’s something they do so infrequently as to not effect there health, it isn’t a huge concern of mine. I’m not sure I can picture myself believing that someone would actually only do it so infrequently without seriously risking falling into a destructive habit- but that’s a separate issue.

I’d find it “gross”, but not “wrong.”

 

[PRmerger]

If someone can credibly say that it’s something they do so infrequently as to not effect there health, it isn’t a huge concern of mine. I’m not sure I can picture myself believing that someone would actually only do it so infrequently without seriously risking falling into a destructive habit- but that’s a separate issue.

I’d find it “gross”, but not “wrong.”

Wow.

I am simply astonished at the things that have been professed here by you.

“I wouldn’t find it wrong if my daughter embraced the idea that she could eat anything she wanted and then throw it up, as long as she did it infrequently. It would be gross. But not wrong.”

Simply astonished.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Irreligion is still pretty dominant in Sweden, with something like 18% or less professing belief in a god/gods. No reason to believe the pendulum is swinging back, at least based on the “fast growing” statistic.

Only time will tell. Sweden gave up Norse mythology for Catholicism once before, and may yet do it again when pagan values of their secular culture demand a change of heart.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Wow.

I am simply astonished at the things that have been professed here by you.

“I wouldn’t find it wrong if my daughter embraced the idea that she could eat anything she wanted and then throw it up, as long as she did it infrequently. It would be gross. But not wrong.”

Simply astonished.

Pretty much. If someone can enjoy themselves without being destructive (themselves/others/their finances), why not?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Only time will tell. Sweden gave up Norse mythology for Catholicism once before, and may yet do it again when pagan values of their secular culture demand a change of heart.

Could be, but there’s no reason to believe that’s what happening now.

Also, secularism is not related to paganism. Not everything non-Christian is pagan.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Could be, but there’s no reason to believe that’s what happening now.

Also, secularism is not related to paganism. Not everything non-Christian is pagan.

A pagan is defined here as one who worships a false god. The secularist Swedes mostly worship their nanny State. But I have not lost faith in their ability to come to their senses sooner or later. It may take several decades or a century or two. What you don’t see doesn’t mean that the seeds have not been planted and already nurtured.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

A pagan is defined here as one who worships a false god. The secularist Swedes mostly worship their nanny State.

They recognize that it works for them. That’s it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

First: the talk of compulsion was using terminology borrowed from another poster I was responding to. Read back for full context.

Second: I was not using “must” in the obligatory sense. A good person must do good things just like a triangle must have three sides and three vertices. I distinguish between an obligation and a definitional requirement. If we define a good person to be one who follows the ten commandments, then a good person must follow the ten commandments by definition, just as an even number must be divisible by 2.

Nowhere am I supposing moral obligations of any kind- but certain descriptors like “good” can have qualifications attached to them. Only those that meet the qualifications meet the definition of the adjective in question. Thus, there are certain characteristics a person must have to be “good”.

And yes, who is and is not considered good will vary depending on the beliefs of the observer.

Yes, I get all this. It simply sidesteps the key point, however – the very definition of “good,” to be at all meaningful, requires a qualitative ground for “good” in reality. ANY qualitative determination of “good” can have NO fundamental support in eliminative materialism (aka metaphysical naturalism).

It is like claiming triangles MUST have three sides while at the same time denying that geometry exists; or stating that even numbers MUST be divisible by 2 while insisting that mathematics or number systems are meaningless.

It simply removes the entire basis for determining what “good” can possibly mean, while – at the same time – insisting that a good person “must” do “good.”

If “good" has no objective reality, then – according to you – there can be NO sense in insisting that “good” persons must do “good.” AND certainly there CANNOT be the kind of moral force required to compel others to do “good."

By removing the only grounds for making any determination of “good” to begin with, you have thereby removed the possibility for determining what a “good” person does or how THAT can be known in the first place.

It is like correctly doing addition without numbers or determining the dimensional measurement of lengths and angles without geometry. There are no objectively real grounds upon which you can moor determinations of moral good – if eliminative materialism (atheism) is all there is.

To be consistent, your statement that "A good person must do good things” means about as much in EM reality as “A hfgdyjsdx person must do hfgdyjsdx things.”

By the way, I noticed that you haven’t addressed my post #870.

 

[Peter_Plato]

They recognize that it works for them. That’s it.

Sure, and National Socialism worked for a time in Germany.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

They recognize that it works for them. That’s it.

And Fascism worked for a time in Italy.

And communism worked for a time in the Soviet Union.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Yes, I get all this. It simply sidesteps the key point, however – the very definition of “good,” to be at all meaningful, requires a qualitative ground for “good” in reality. ANY qualitative determination of “good” can have NO fundamental support in eliminative materialism (aka metaphysical naturalism).

It is like claiming triangles MUST have three sides while at the same time denying that geometry exists; or stating that even numbers MUST be divisible by 2 while insisting that mathematics or number systems are meaningless.

It simply removes the entire basis for determining what “good” can possibly mean, while – at the same time – insisting that a good person “must” do “good.”

If “good" has no objective reality, then – according to you – there can be NO sense in insisting that “good” persons must do “good.” AND certainly there CANNOT be the kind of moral force required to compel others to do “good."

By removing the only grounds for making any determination of “good” to begin with, you have thereby removed the possibility for determining what a “good” person does or how THAT can be known in the first place.

It is like correctly doing addition without numbers or determining the dimensional measurement of lengths and angles without geometry. There are no objectively real grounds upon which you can moor determinations of moral good – if eliminative materialism (atheism) is all there is.

To be consistent, your statement that "A good person must do good things” means about as much in EM reality as “A hfgdyjsdx person must do hfgdyjsdx things.”

By the way, I noticed that you haven’t addressed my post #870.

Who is and is not considered a good person will vary from observer to observer, as their moral views vary. I agree that it’s not a very meaningful concept in a subjective morality framework- another poster posed a question to the effect of “Must a good person do good things” and the discussion went on from there, and the above is me seeking to highlight than a definition requirement should not be interpreted as an obligatory imperative.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Sure, and National Socialism worked for a time in Germany.

National Socialism took power in something of an effective coup, relied on violence and intimidation right from the get go, saw rampant militarization and the implementation of a secret police, and a huge manner of other abominable things- right from the beginning.

Sweden has… high taxes, environmental regulations, “free” healthcare, and “free” education.

Aside from a high government spending as a % of GDP (25%), I’m not exactly blown away by the parallels. When Sweden annexes Norway, let me know.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…]another poster posed a question to the effect of “Must a good person do good things” and the discussion went on from there, …]

That question is all throughout this discussion on several pages using several different wordings asking for either agreement with the statement or disagreement with an inversion of that statement. To me it appears to be a tautology with a touch of ambiguity from the word “must”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That question is all throughout this discussion on several pages using several different wordings asking for either agreement with the statement or disagreement with an inversion of that statement. To me it appears to be a tautology with a touch of ambiguity from the word “must”.

Not sure what your point is here.

I agree that for a metaphysical naturalist - in particular, one who thinks “good” is entirely subjective AND relative - the statement is trivial. If “good” means nothing but what the speaker intends it to mean, then, as a proposition that purports to make a truth claim, it is meaningless. It states precisely nothing.

There are, I think, two ways around this problem and neither of them are very appealing to atheists because one involves admitting the essential teleology in nature and the other straight out requires that the ground of existence is intentional, i.e., God exists as Ipsum Esse Existens.

The first is the Aristotelian view where the inherent nature of the universe has embedded within it final causes or outcomes. A thing can then be said to be “good” according to whether it achieves its integral ends which is found in a complete accounting of what it is. Aristotle’s theory of the four causes spell out what is required to fully explain the existence of any entity - its function or why it exists determining how “good” it is. Does it fulfill the ends integral to what it is?

Again, the problem for atheists is that Aristotelian metaphysics points towards the integral purpose or teleology in things and meaning that is derived from that purpose. Absent God or Uncaused Cause it is difficult to account for final causality which is why atheists simply resort to denial.

The second way of resolving the problem is full-blown classical theism where qualitative reality is part and parcel of the ground of existence itself. Good is a quality that exists within things by virtue of what they are.

Catholicism uses both the above to account for what “good” is.

Metaphysical naturalism has nothing to offer which is why it hangs on by the skin of its fingertips to insisting that “good” is subjective and, therefore, undefinably “meaningful” to each individual but fails miserably when it must explain why anyone should be compelled or obligated to act morally - especially where serious moral ground is at stake.

If morality is entirely the domain of the individual why should anyone have any “right” to force their subjective view on someone else? Morality and definitions of “good” simply evaporate in a fog of amoral or immoral pragmatism or might simply determines “right.”