Demarcation against Religion: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Demarcation against Religion » Demarcation against Religion

Demarcation against Religion
Is it in vain?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Demarcation against Religion

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 07/26/09 - 05:04 AM:	#61
thewatcher wrote: So, in other words, the more thoroughgoing the control of daily life excercised by a given state, the more its citizens "trust the community to instill values in their children" therefore eliminating the need for religious mythology. It seems oppression and brutality have advocates even on a forum such as this. Actually, you've got it wrong. He identified 3 types of state: capitalist (e.g. USA), socialist (e.g. Sweden) and communist (e.g. USSR). The level of control the goverment has over the daily lives goes as follows: Socialist (least control) Capitalist Communist (most control) In a totalitarian state like a communist state, religion tends to be banned as the state requires full allegiance from it's people; the communists want people worshipping the state, not a God. So: "So, in other words, the more thoroughgoing the control of daily life excercised by a given state, the more its citizens "trust the community to instill values in their children" therefore eliminating the need for religious mythology." It's not "the more thoroughgoing the control of daily life excercised by a given state", it's "the less the state excercises control in the daily life of citizens the more likely those citizens are to bring their children up in a non-religious environment/instill their own (secluar) values." Which suggests that in a capitalist state such as the USA there is pressure from the government to raise your children in a religious setting; I don't live in the USA but I suppose that is true.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4148

Posted 07/26/09 - 12:13 PM:	#62
jeeprs wrote: No not crazy at all but completely uninformed about the meaning of religion. The only question is, would you ever be able to consider that there is something to learn about the meaning of religion, or have you already made up your mind that it is meaningless? There is undoubtly more for me to learn about anything and everything, including not least of all the use of language. Do you admit that there is more you could learn about linguistic analysis? Crackers wrote: So: "So, in other words, the more thoroughgoing the control of daily life excercised by a given state, the more its citizens "trust the community to instill values in their children" therefore eliminating the need for religious mythology." It's not "the more thoroughgoing the control of daily life excercised by a given state", it's "the less the state excercises control in the daily life of citizens the more likely those citizens are to bring their children up in a non-religious environment/instill their own (secluar) values." Which suggests that in a capitalist state such as the USA there is pressure from the government to raise your children in a religious setting; I don't live in the USA but I suppose that is true. The strong emphasis in the US on seperation of church and state seriously limits any pressure from the government to raise your children in a religious manner, but there is still some modest pressure. For example, every child in school says the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. In the 1950s the federal government decided to change the wording of the pledge to include "one nation, under God." States also tend to insist on morning prayers for school children, although they are forced by the law to allow them to merely observe a moment of silence if they prefer. There are also only two federal income tax exempt statuses in the US, one for religious and one for eductional institutions. Just about anyone can claim they are a religious organization and, as a result, over sixty percent of the corporations in the US now claim religious tax exemption. The communes I used to live used this same legal loophole even though they were quite secular. However, what is important to note is that this income tax exemption applies to any organization claiming they are religious whether they are a cheritable organization or merely promoting their personal beliefs. In addition, there are also no laws in the US protecting the rights of atheists and agnostics per se (although notably there are such laws protecting the rights of the religious), but I would not go so far as to say they are as discriminated against as say homosexuals or people of color. The situation then is similar to the propaganda system that the US incorporates, it is a more subtle than overt form of pressure that favors the religious.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 07/29/09 - 03:28 PM:	#63
wuliheron wrote: Declaring secularism to be a myth is an attempt to redefine the word. Find me a single widely used dictionary that defines secularism as a myth! The word secularism has the same meaning whether it is a myth BECAUSE the definition of secularism refers to a particular IDEA. Whether or not that IDEA is born out in REALITY or, indeed, is INTERNALLY COHERENT, has nothing to do with its definition AS SUCH. wuliheron wrote: I merely stated that religious attendence was *one* criteria. I also stated that the so-called secular governments were all democratic. If we are to have anything resembling a meaningful conversation on the subject you will have to read what I say more carefully and stop imposing your own interpretations willy-nilly on what I write. So, democracy is a necessary attribute of a secular (sic) society? That should come as a great surprise to the (avowedly) secular People's Republic of China (to say nothing of Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and on and on and on). Now who is redefining the word secular? This would be funny if it were not so sad. Actually, this highlights yet another flaw in your argument: Unless you yourself redefine secularism (to entail democratic government) you are constrained to account for all manner of societies that you have, as of yet, not mentioned. This would completely demolish your argument: Social Services in the United States are far superior to those in China, India, North Korea, Vietnam and a number of other secular (sic) states and America's human rights record, economic strength, literacy rate and countless other indicators of social, economic and political wellbeing are likewise superior. So much for secularism. wuliheron wrote: Furthermore, you can claim that the moon is made of cheese for all I care. It still makes no difference whatsoever to my arguments. The difference, however, is that, unlike the claim that the moon is made of cheese, the claim that secularism is incoherent has important implications for your argument which hinges upon your ability to distinguish secular societies from religious ones. If my arguments are correct, then your arguments collapse completely. Thus, it is incumbant upon you to address my arguments should you wish to defend your own.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 07/29/09 - 03:34 PM:	#64
Crackers wrote: Actually, you've got it wrong. He identified 3 types of state: capitalist (e.g. USA), socialist (e.g. Sweden) and communist (e.g. USSR). The level of control the goverment has over the daily lives goes as follows: Socialist (least control) Capitalist Communist (most control) You must be joking. A socialist state owns the means of production, which means that the government, rather than private individuals, have control of the economic fortunes of citizens. This sort of control is more pervasive than any a Capitalist state could hope to achieve because the means of production and the fate of the economy are largely or entirely in the hands of private interests. I would be inclined to rank the systems as follows: Capitalist (Least Control) Socialist Communist (Most Control).

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4148

Posted 07/30/09 - 02:10 AM:	#65
What are you smoking watcher?

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 07/30/09 - 03:19 PM:	#66
wuliheron wrote: What are you smoking watcher? Why, your arguments of course. For smoking is indeed the best way to prepare red herrings for long term storage. Now I know that a heron is an eater of fish, but I myself would prefer more substantial fare. Alas and alack, you seem quite dedicated to not providing me with the actual arguments that I crave.

jeeprs
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 17, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 53

Posted 07/30/09 - 11:53 PM:	#67
Socialism controls you by telling you what you can't have. Capitalism controls you by making you want what you can't have. Either way you're under control. "Consume. Be silent. Die." That is how most of the 'ruling classes' of left or right want you to live your life.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4148

Posted 07/31/09 - 05:15 AM:	#68
The argument was over the thriving democracies of the world, not totalitarian socialist states like China or, for that matter, capitalist dictatorships! The only arguments you are eating are your own, which are off topic.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 08/04/09 - 03:27 PM:	#69
jeeprs wrote: Socialism controls you by telling you what you can't have. Capitalism controls you by making you want what you can't have. Either way you're under control. "Consume. Be silent. Die." That is how most of the 'ruling classes' of left or right want you to live your life. Perhaps in a broader sense you are correct. I think that the operative question is whose control are you under? Under socialism, you are under the concious control of the state. Capitalism, by contrast, is not under anyone's concious control but rather entails the autonomous functioning of the market.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 08/04/09 - 03:30 PM:	#70
wuliheron wrote: The argument was over the thriving democracies of the world, not totalitarian socialist states like China or, for that matter, capitalist dictatorships! The only arguments you are eating are your own, which are off topic. I fail to see how you can thusly limit the scope of consideration if the only matters at issue are secularism (sic) and religiousity... Is there some other reason why we should limit this inquiry to democracies?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.