Pastafarians not giving up their claim to be a religion

_{News
April 18, 2016

Culture, Darwinism, Naturalism

2}_{Categories
Culture
Darwinism
Naturalism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The claim was recently dismissed by a judge. From Atlas Obscura:

Since its introduction in 2005, the mythology of Pastafarianism has grown to encompass pirates, an afterlife with a beer volcano, and more. There is, of course, a snazzy orientation video to welcome you into the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s noodly arms:

Spaghetti, Wenches & Metaphysics: Episode 1—The FSM from Matt Tillman on Vimeo.

In fact, Pastafarianism is an officially recognized religion in three countries—first in Poland, where it became an officially registered religious community in 2014 thanks to a legal technicality, then in the Netherlands this past January. And just this weekend, New Zealand recognized the first legally-binding Pastafarian wedding, officiated by “minestroni” Karen Martyn. The happy couple were wed in the customary pirate’s garb, and Martyn is ready to perform additional ceremonies for any legally eligible adults, explaining to the BBC, “I’ve had people from Russia, from Germany, from Denmark, from all over contacting me and wanting me to marry them in the church because of our non-discriminatory philosophy.” More.

The underlying purpose may be to bring religion into disrepute by organized silliness.

A central characteristic of traditionally recognized religions, protected by conscience rights, is that, whether one thinks them right or wrong, sensible or silly, people do believe them. One somehow knows that these people do not believe what they say.

The result of successful legal challenges would be to undermine the importance of honest belief and conscience as such in determining cases involving religion.

See also: Wow: Court rules for common sense… Flying Spaghetti Monster not a religion Pastafarianism was so obviously a regional cultural parody, and yet… Maybe it’s instructive that it was a North American judge who figured that one out.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Aleta I find that BA and KF post substance, I enjoy their posts you are of course free to point out their incoherency or and deficiency in logic. But here is the issue, atheism is hollow and as a former atheist I speak of what I do know. There is no substance to atheism, it avoids the critical questions and it is like a locked gate that prevents you from exploring what's beyond my comfort zone. Here you guys are using reason to deny reason, here you guys are using your logic that you seem to think is not ground in anything and here you are trying to profess truth, but in a atheistic universe does truth even matter? Then of course you carry on about your morals, and how those morals are being shot down. Don't forget that you also think that life magically arrived by the few random crashes of atoms and elements.... What do you ground your morals in? What meaning does reason, logic and morals have in a world that has no objective standard? To think that I once believed exactly like you, viewed the world exactly like you reasoned exactly like you and acted exactly like you is rather funny, but in truth is sad. Now on this laws that privilege religious belief what are they? Are you complaining about their exemption from tax? Do you know why there is an exemption? Some history.....
The first recorded tax exemption for churches was during the Roman Empire, when Constantine, Emperor of Rome from 306-337, granted the Christian church a complete exemption from all forms of taxation following his supposed conversion to Christianity circa 312.
Why are churches exempt from tax from a political point of view as you ask? Here are the reasons.... 1. Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other. 2.Requiring churches to pay taxes would endanger the free expression of religion and violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By taxing churches, the government would be empowered to penalize or shut them down if they default on their payments. [12] The US Supreme Court confirmed this in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) when it stated: "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." 3. Churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good. [14] Churches offer numerous social services to people in need, including soup kitchens, homeless shelters, afterschool programs for poor families, assistance to victims of domestic violence, etc. [15] These efforts relieve government of doing work it would otherwise be obliged to undertake. 4. Taxing churches would place government above religion. The Biblical book of Judges says that those who rule society are appointed directly by God. [2] Evangelist and former USA Today columnist Don Boys, PhD, asked "will any Bible believer maintain that government is over the Church of the Living God? I thought Christ was preeminent over all." [16] 5. A tax exemption for churches is not a subsidy to religion, and is therefore constitutional. As stated by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in his majority opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees 'on the public payroll.' There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion." [5] 6. Poor and disadvantaged people relying on assistance from their local churches would suffer if churches were to lose their tax-exempt status. According to Vincent Becker, Monsignor of the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, NY, the food and clothing programs his church offers would be threatened by a tax burden: "All of a sudden, we would be hit with something we haven't had to face in the past… We base all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings." [17] Crucial services would either be eliminated or relegated to cash-strapped local governments if churches were to lose their tax exemptions. 7. US churches have been tax-exempt for over 200 years, yet there are no signs that America has become a theocracy. If the tax exemption were a serious threat to the separation of church and state, the US government would have succumbed to religious rule long ago. As the Supreme Court ruled in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief." [18] 8. Taxing churches when their members receive no monetary gain would amount to double taxation. The late Rev. Dean M. Kelley, a leading proponent of religious freedom, explained that church members are already taxed on their individual incomes, so "to tax them again for participation in voluntary organizations from which they derive no monetary gain would be 'double taxation' indeed, and would effectively serve to discourage them from devoting time, money, and energy to organizations which contribute to the up building of the fabric of democracy." 10. The only constitutionally valid way of taxing churches would be to tax all nonprofits, which would place undue financial pressure on the 960,000 public charities that aid and enrich US society. If only churches were taxed, government would be treating churches differently, purely because of their religious nature. [20] [21] 11. The vast majority of churches refrain from political campaigning and should not be punished for the actions of the few that are political. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) gives churches the freedom to either accept a tax benefit and refrain from political campaigning like all other nonprofit charities, or reject the exemption and speak freely about political candidates. [1] [23] There are 450,000 churches in the US, yet only 500 pastors made political statements as part of Pulpit Freedom Sunday on Oct. 2, 2011. [35] [58] The tax exemption should remain in place to benefit the vast majority of churches. 12. Withdrawing the "parsonage exemption" on ministers' housing would cost American clergy members $2.3 billion over five years, [60] which would be a major blow to modestly paid men and women who dedicate their lives to helping people in need. According to the National Association of Church Business Administration (NACBA), the average American pastor with a congregation of 300 people earns less than $28,000 per year. The NACBA also states that one in five pastors takes on a second job to earn extra income, and that only 5% of pastors earn more than $50,000. [59] As stated by D. August Boto, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, "the housing allowance is critically important for making ends meet—it is not a luxury." [62] the bad..... 1. Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith… I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional." [24] 2.A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community, but there is no such provision in the US Constitution. [25] 3.Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. [1] 4.A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines. As Mark Twain argued: "no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused." [26] 5.A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion. William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): "Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income." [27] 6.The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup "faiths," which benefit at taxpayers' expense. In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties. [8] In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in schemes that "exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one-person, nonprofit religious corporations" charging $1,000 or more per person to attend "seminars." [28] The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a "thriving cult of greed and power" and "a hugely profitable global racket," [29] was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this "saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes." [30] 7.Churches serve a religious purpose that does not aid the government, so their tax exemptions are not justified. Tax exemptions to secular nonprofits like hospitals and homeless shelters are justified because such organizations do work that would otherwise fall to government. Churches, while they may undertake charitable work, exist primarily for religious worship and instruction, which the US government is constitutionally prevented from performing. [31] 8.Exempting churches from taxation costs the government billions of dollars in lost revenue, which it cannot afford, especially in tough economic times. According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. [9] New York's nonpartisan Independent Budget Office determined in July 2011 that New York City alone loses $627 million in property tax revenue. [11] Lakewood Church, a "megachurch" in Houston, TX, earns $75 million in annual untaxed revenue, and the Church of Scientology's annual income exceeds $500 million. [32] [33] 9.Despite the 1954 law banning political campaigning by tax-exempt groups, many churches are clearly political and therefore should not be receiving tax exemptions. [9] [34] Every fall, the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, organizes "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," encouraging pastors to defy IRS rules by endorsing candidates from the pulpit. More than 500 pastors participated in Oct. 2011, yet none lost their churches' exemption status. [35] In Oct. 2010, Minnesota pastor Brad Brandon of Berean Bible Baptist Church endorsed several Republican candidates and dared the "liberal media" to file complaints with the IRS. Brandon later announced on his radio program: "I'm going to explain to you what happened… Nothing happened." [35] 10.American taxpayers are supporting the extravagant lifestyles of wealthy pastors, whose lavish "megachurches" accumulate millions of tax-free dollars every year. US Senator Chuck Grassley, MA (R-IA) launched an investigation into these groups in Nov. 2007 after receiving complaints of church revenue being used to buy pastors private jets, Rolls Royce cars, multimillion-dollar homes, trips to Hawaii and Fiji, and in one case, a $23,000, marble-topped chest of drawers installed in the 150,000 square foot headquarters of Joyce Meyer Ministries in Fenton, Missouri. [36] 11.The tax break given to churches restricts their freedom of speech because it deters pastors from speaking out for or against political candidates. [1] As argued by Rev. Carl Gregg, pastor of Maryland's Broadview Church, "when Christians speak, we shouldn't have to worry about whether we are biting the hand that feeds us because we shouldn't be fed from Caesar/Uncle Sam in the first place." [37] 12.The "parsonage exemption" on ministers' homes makes already-wealthy pastors even richer at taxpayers' expense. The average annual salary for senior pastors with congregations of 2,000 or more is $147,000, with some earning up to $400,000. [61] In addition to the federal exemption on housing expenses enjoyed by these ministers, they often pay zero dollars in state property tax. Church leaders Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International had three tax-free parsonages: a million-dollar mansion in Atlanta, GA, a two-million-dollar mansion in Fayetteville, GA, [63] and a $2.5 million Manhattan apartment. [64] Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, leaders of Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Fort Worth, TX, live in a church-owned, tax-free $6.2 million lakefront parsonage. [62] http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/ Of course if you wanted truth you would have found this information yourself, instead you're just here baiting people....... but what you must do here is weigh-up the pro's and the cons, can you imagine if government was solely responsible for charity? Can you even imagine the misery that would follow?Andre_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT}

Andre: "Will it help the deniers that write long winded posts in their way if I said atheism is in actual fact a religion? It is the belief that there is no God…." It may help you in trying to convince yourself of this delusion, but it won't help anybody else.Indiana Effigy_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

to Andre at 57:
long winded posts ...
Hah! :-) Have you read BA77 or Kairosfocus lately? Andre, you've thrown out a few of the standard, simplistic canards about atheism. However, my interest in this thread is limited to the political question of laws that privilege religious belief.Aleta_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

Aleta How can you say people have obligations? Obligation to who? For whatever reason? If these obligations are not met then what? You see one thing atheists keep gettimg wrong is the silly idea that you must be a good person or be good.... If that is what you think or believe then you miss the very point of your existence.Andre_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

IE A few things... How do you know it's wrong? Secondly it's a bit cheeky of you to tell me about your reasoning capacity if you ultimately deny reason.Andre_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

Will it help the deniers that write long winded posts in their way if I said atheism is in actual fact a religion? It is the belief that there is no God.... Yes it's just a belief, to know there is no God means you have to know everything. Do you know everything? P.S. You also get atheist churches these day who congregate on Sundays.Andre_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

Some responses to Thumper The example about tax exempt status doesn't seem relevant to this discussion. Non-profits don't pay taxes, but that doesn't have anything to do with religious belief at all. Most laws affect people entirely independently of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. We all are to stop at stop signs. So when you ask,
Fact is, we have laws that benefit both the religious and non equally – would you complain about those?
My response is of course not. What I am "complaining about", or rather, stating my opposition to, is/would be laws which allow people special exceptions from the laws because of their religious beliefs. That is a fairly narrow range of laws. You write,
Being morally based does not necessitate a law being valid…there are plenty of examples that I’m sure you get…some laws are flat out just safety based, and common good.
I agree. Most laws are based on considerations such as these. Even those which coincide with common moral beliefs (murder is bad) are also grounded in such things as the well-being of individuals (including the protection of their rights) and the common good. Also you mention the following,
This is no different that an atheists that refuses to teach ethics in a public school because they don’t feel that the class represents their beliefs.
I don't know whether there is really a case like this, but my opinion is that if there were the teacher should be fired. I was a public school teacher for almost 40 years, and I believe strongly that a teacher has an obligation to teach the curriculum determined by whatever local and state regulations apply. Also, the job of an ethics teacher (as well as political science teacher, which I was for a short while), government teacher or comparative religions teacher, etc. is to give the students a well-rounded overview of the subject, nit to teach one's own perspective. Ideally, the students should not even know the particular beliefs of the teacher. You mention a number of possible problematic laws: being forced to pray every night before you go to bed in your own house, and others including the seemingly ubiquitous example of torturing babies. Hypotheticals are not worth spending very much time on. I can think of lots of laws that I would feel obligated to disobey based on my own standards and principles, but most of them are so extremely unlikely to exist (in part because most people would be in agreement about them) that I don't think they are very instructive to think about. But I do acknowledge that, as I said before, that all of us could find ourselves in a position where we felt that not following a law was called for. In such cases, one needs to be prepared to live with the consequences. There was a least one situation in my life, back in the 60's, where that was the case for me, but the situation never fully developed and so I didn't have to actually make that choice.Aleta_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Trumped: "I just gave you one of several examples where atheists get tax exempt status… Yea! they can be considered a religion now!" No. Any group can apply for not-for-profit status and not have to pay taxes. It has nothing to do with religion. I work for a not-for-profit. It has nothing to do with religion. We accredit the labs that test your drinking water. "Your birth control example is very similar to the gay marriage certificate clerk event that took place a while back… the clerk did not believe in gay marriage so she did not issue certs once it was announced that gay marriage was legal in that jurisdiction." Not at all similar. She was an elected official who swore to uphold the laws of the country, and then refused to do so. She could have resigned but chose to break her oath instead. An oath she swore on a bible. In my mind, she is just a deplorable individual. "Would you be willing to suppress someone who does not share your moral decency standard?" You mean like that deplorable county clerk who refused to issue a legally entitled marriage licence? What is your point? "Take the public torture of babies while you shop for groceries… would you want this practice to flourish? " When you can find an example of anyone suggesting this, get back to me. Until then, stop suggesting hypotheticals that only the mentally moronic would suggest. "We are slowly getting better as a society..." I agree. The increased secularity and decreased superstitious reliance on religion is beginning to show benefits. Thank you for noticing.Indiana Effigy_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

@Aleta - you stated " and my question is why a belief should have to be religious in order to get such dispensation. What makes religious beliefs special?" Actually a belief does not have to be religious at all to get such dispensations... I just gave you one of several examples where atheists get tax exempt status... Yea! they can be considered a religion now! Fact is, we have laws that benefit both the religious and non equally - would you complain about those? Being morally based does not necessitate a law being valid...there are plenty of examples that I'm sure you get...some laws are flat out just safety based, and common good. Your birth control example is very similar to the gay marriage certificate clerk event that took place a while back... the clerk did not believe in gay marriage so she did not issue certs once it was announced that gay marriage was legal in that jurisdiction. I have no problem with that because as it turns out the worker was hired while gay marriage was illegal. Had she been hired after the law changed then she should of either accepted the law or not have applied for the position. This is no different that an atheists that refuses to teach ethics in a public school because they don't feel that the class represents their beliefs. In either case the 'institution' found a way to provide the law on the books without the annoyance. You and I both know that morality is not exclusive....and laws are not always fair. Would you want to be forced to pray every night before you go to bed in your own house? What if there was a law passed that forced you to do this or you got fined. How about if you were using public roads and every time you passed any church you had to pause and pray? Not liking that either? Even you likely have some decency standards that you ought not be ok with in a public place. Would you be willing to suppress someone who does not share your moral decency standard? Take the public torture of babies while you shop for groceries... would you want this practice to flourish? Likely not but for different reasons than me. We are slowly getting better as a society (civilized ones at least). Takes time but as a civilization diverges itself from commonness to more and more disparate lifestyles the laws can't keep pace....I don't see this getting better sadly.Trumper_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

I'd like to clarify the last main sentence of my last post at 52: Added for clarification: Of course, one can not obey the law, and live with the consequences, and for each of us I am sure there are at least potential laws that we would feel it more important to disobey than follow. What I mean is that "What he can not do is expect a law to let him not have to obey another law just because it (the second law) is in conflict with his religious beliefs." More broadly, I don't believe one's sincerely held beliefs, religious or not, should be the basis for being allowed to not follow a law.Aleta_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

to Trumper at 47: The reason I ask the question is that many states are passing laws, or considering it, to let people not do things they would otherwise have to (such as serve customers, or provide other services) if such acts would be against their sincerely held religious beliefs, and my question is why a belief should have to be religious in order to get such dispensation. What makes religious beliefs special? For instance, consider a law allowing a pharmacist the right to refuse to dispense birth control pills to unmarried women because they have the sincerely held Catholic belief that both contraception and sex outside of marriage are wrong. Assume you support such a law. Should a non-religious person who also has a sincerely held belief that women should not use contraception nor have sex outside of marriage have that same right? Or does this person not have that same right because their belief isn't religiously based? My answer to this question is that the law should be the law, irrespective of whether someone's sincerely held beliefs are violated or offended, and whether they are religiously-based or not. Religious belief should confer no special privilege. If the law says that a pharmacist has an obligation to serve the public as their doctor prescribes, then that is what the pharmacist should do. If the pharmacist has moral difficulties with that then he, as we often due, has to decide how best to resolve the situation for himself: he can find a different occupation, he can accept that people will do things he doesn't like but that he is obligated to serve them, he can work in his non-professional life to educate people about the issue as he sees it, he can work to change the laws, etc. What he can not do is not obey the law because it is in conflict with his religious beliefs. That's my position.Aleta_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

"It is my sincere held belief that it is good to torture babies. How can those that have sincere beliefs that it is wrong have a higher regard than mine" Can you perceive of a society that could endure if torturing children was an accepted practice? I have sufficient reasoning capacity to realize that doing this (or condoning it) is not in my best interest in the long term. But if you require a mythical being to convince you of this, that works too.Indiana Effigy_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

It is my sincere held belief that it is good to torture babies. How can those that have sincere beliefs that it is wrong have a higher regard than mine?Andre_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

If Dawkins, speaking from the naturalism perspective, is correct in implying that all the universe has to offer, at bottom, is pitiless indifference, then anything in the universe that demonstrates other than pitiless indifference is, at bottom, an illusion. Morality, in concept and practice, is pretty much the opposite of pitiless indifference. Therefore, from naturalism's perspective, morality must be, at bottom, an illusion. Concluding that morality is, at bottom, an illusion tends to work against grounding it. Thus, Dawkins' view and naturalism's lack the means to ground morality.Phinehas_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Hey, if space-time, matter, information, life, and consciousness all "emerged" from nothing, then why not morality? As Origenes points out, "Naturalism lacks the means to ground morality, irrespective of any belief one may have." But who needs to ground things when one is so incredibly adept at swallowing camels?Phinehas_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

@Aleta 16- Why would that be your question? I'm certain that in a fair and just society, if you wanted to claim tax exempt status for your beliefs you would do so (just follow the laws to make it happen). For example - the "law" treats many atheist organization equally as religious denominations when it comes to tax exempt status. this is an example that shows where a fair and balanced law can work. Maybe you have a specific example in mind where you see this imbalance?Trumper_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Aleta, sorry, I misunderstood your earlier comment. But in your latest comment you talk about the ability to talk, the ability to use our hands to manipulate things, etc as if they are the result of nature (during development or after birth. But are not these things the result of having a complex brain, vocal chords, opposable thumbs, etc.? Whether or not we avail ourselves of these capabilities will be largely the result of our learning and experience.Indiana Effigy_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

FWIW, I think instinct is too limited a word. A baby's rooting for a nipple is instinct, but the capacity and inclination to love and feel committed to one's closet social circle, for instance, the ability to talk, the ability to use our hands to manipulate things, etc, are complex behaviors that develop via an interplay with experience. They are part of our biological nature, but too complex, I think, to be considered just instinct.Aleta_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Aleta, I agree that nature (instinct) also plays a role.Indiana Effigy_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Good answers, IE. However,beside teaching and experience, I think there is a nature component to complement the nurture part. (FWIW, and I mention not to invoke authority but just to explain background), my original degree was in anthropology, with a major interest in religion and belief systems in primitive societies.) I think there is universal, biologically-based predisposition towards qualities related to moral systems. For instance, and this seems pretty obvious, there are natural impulses for adults to love and care for babies, which grows into love, affection, and commitment to each other among members of the closest circle of people around some one. It is common, perhaps universal, for there to be several circles of groups of people to whom different levels of morality apply, starting with one's family (however defined in any particular society), a next circle of one's community (such as a village), larger identity groups (one's tribe or city, state, or nation), etc., with an outer layer of enemies for whom very different standards of moral conduct, or lack thereof, apply. Although all societies ground their understanding of these different social circles of moral obligation in cultural terms (which most often include religion as a major component), as you point out, the exact details of the moral rules and the belief systems which are used to culturally ground them vary widely. This interplay between some universal predispositions in human nature and cultural details which are invented and passed on is what makes such a large diversity of societies that all share, nevertheless, some basic human commonalities.Aleta_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

KF: "I just noticed the attempt to dismiss one of the most profound issues in philosophy, the fact that we find ourselves governed by an inescapable sense of ought." True. What we disagree on is where the OUGHT originates. You think it originates with God (religious belief) I think it originates within us. The fact that there are so many variations on OUGHT strongly suggests that it is internal, strongly affected by community. "IE, like far too many new atheists, you are inclined to belittle, trivialise and dismiss worldview level issues and philosophical considerations on them." Not belittle. Disagree with. If you think that a disagreement is belittling, that is your problem, not mine. "On evidence, it seems to be by and large a rhetorical tactic to make the consistent want of substance on the part of new atheists seem of no great account." Your unsubstantiated opinion is duly noted. "But in fact that glib, supercilious, snidely dismissive superficiality is precisely one of the strongest indicators that there is little substance behind the toxic rhetoric and bombast." Your ad-hominem attack is duly noted. "Ought is real, and ought should be grounded." Agreed. It is grounded by our teaching and experience. How else do you explain that the OUGHTs vary from community to community and from time to time? "There is only one level where such can be found (as the very image suggests): world foundations." Your opinion is duly noted, but not supported by evidence. "Is there a serious world-root candidate IS that would adequately ground OUGHT?" Teaching and experience. "Namely, the inherently good and wise Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible, freely given service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature." Your religious belief is duly noted, and respected. But not agreed with. "God, the God of ethical theism, and the God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition that is undeniably foundational to our civilisation." Your exclusion of the majority of the world's population is very telling. "The IS-OUGHT gap issue is real, and it can only be addressed at world root level." Agreed. Everybody on earth is exposed to teaching and experience. That is where the world root level exists. "The God of ethical theism is on the table as a serious candidate. It is further claimed that this is the best and indeed the only adequate candidate." Your unsubstantiated claim is duly noted. "To refute such, simply provide a second serious candidate and then let us address comparative difficulties." Provided, repeatedly, above. All evidence supports this over a God rooted system. How else do you explain the fact that morality varies from society to society and over time within the same society. And from individual to individual within the same society. The more universal the OUGHT is, the more you will find that it is needed for any society to endure. "The challenge remains, answer to the is-ought gap." Has been done repeated, on tis site and others. The fact that you don't like the answer is your problem, not mine. G'day.Indiana Effigy_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

I'll note, for the record, that none of the respondents actually responded to the question I asked in 16, which involves not religious and philosophical beliefs themselves but rather the position of the law in respect to the rights of people who hold those differing beliefs.Aleta_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

KF, Thanks, I'll respond in the other thread.daveS_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

DS, proof given over and over, as the case of the thought exercise of pink and blue punched tapes shows. start both at 0, advance blue to arbitrarily large but finite k, then k+1 etc. Put blue from k in complete, endless 1:1 match with pink from 0. This shows pink is infinite and blue from k on is the same. Moreover as endlessness onward is always there from any finite k, no process of repeated finite stage steps can traverse that endlessness. I suggest this side issue goes back to its proper thread. KFkairosfocus_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

PPS: As the issues of worldview grounding: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_bld_wvu and the ploy of one sided accusatory litanies of the sins of Christendom: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-9-sins-of-christendom.html#u9_intro are likely to lurk or emerge, I have just now pointed to discussions of same.kairosfocus_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

KF,
Infinite regress being unattainable as endlessness cannot be traversed in finite stage steps,
*Proof pending?daveS_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

F/N: I should note that -- across years -- I have been careful to identify typical cases and patterns of fallacious reasoning commonly found among design objectors. That I have been able to show such, repeatedly, now seems to be used as a basis for the strawman tactic, ad hominem laced acusation that my argument is that if you differ you are guilty of red herrings dragged away to strawmen soaked in ad hominem abusive arguments and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, frustrating responsible, reasonable discussion. Ironically, the very objection just raised shows a case in point of exactly this habitual pattern of fallacies so often resorted to by objectors to design. After all one of their leading spokesmen has never retracted or apologised for the smear that we are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. The accusation that we are right wing, theocratic christo-fascists trying to bring back the inquisition, and tiresomely more, are all massive record. I suggest that it would be more profitable to actually address the merits. KF PS: Likewise, with selective hyperskepticism and ill-founded Clifford-Sagan evidentialism -- which are now increasingly seen as a serious problem with the new atheism movement, indeed such became obvious in the elevatorgate scandal over sexual harassment of women at atheism conferences. Nor should we let such get away with the self-referential incoherence of evolutionary materialism (whether or not it is dressed up in a lab coat) and its inherent amorality and radical relativism which invite nihilism and its agenda that might and manipulation make 'right' and 'truth' etc.kairosfocus_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

Aleta,
Aleta: Origenes, it is you are avoiding the point.
Well, I did not address any particular point you have made. What made you think I did?
Aleta: I made no attempt to respond to your assertion
Fine. In post #23 I did not respond to any assertion you have made either.
Aleta: (...) because arguing whether you are right are wrong is not relevant in the eyes of the law.
My simple point is that naturalism cannot ground morality, how, indeed, is that relevant to the law?
Aleta: Your assertion is a religiously based belief (...)
No it's not. Naturalism lacks the means to ground morality, irrespective of any belief one may have.Origenes_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

IE, As you have been trying to personalise, polarise and dismiss, here is Alinsky in rules for radicals, on what you and your ilk have been doing:
5] “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. 13] “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
The trollish, shabby tactics stand exposed sufficiently by contrast with the serious issues on the table. If all you have is ad hominem attacks and marxist radical tricks, in reply to a serious world foundations matter that speaks volumes. KFkairosfocus_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

IE & Origines I am busy locally, but passed by a moment. I just noticed the attempt to dismiss one of the most profound issues in philosophy, the fact that we find ourselves governed by an inescapable sense of ought. This points to the challenge highlighted in recent centuries by Hume in his guillotine argument, the IS-OUGHT gap. I cite:
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.
IE, like far too many new atheists, you are inclined to belittle, trivialise and dismiss worldview level issues and philosophical considerations on them. On evidence, it seems to be by and large a rhetorical tactic to make the consistent want of substance on the part of new atheists seem of no great account. But in fact that glib, supercilious, snidely dismissive superficiality is precisely one of the strongest indicators that there is little substance behind the toxic rhetoric and bombast. Ought is real, and ought should be grounded. There is only one level where such can be found (as the very image suggests): world foundations. Is there a serious world-root candidate IS that would adequately ground OUGHT? Yes, but it is Him with whom the New Atheists would have nothing to do. Namely, the inherently good and wise Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible, freely given service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. God, the God of ethical theism, and the God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition that is undeniably foundational to our civilisation. God who IS and who grounds OUGHT in inextricable aspects of his nature as necessary, maximally great world root being. That is, OUGHT goes all the way down to the root. Not the least of the points of concern here, is that if we are only subjectively aware of a sense of oughtness that has no objective basis beyond might and manipulation make 'right' or 'truth' etc, then we are subjects of a grand and near-universal delusion. So pervasive and persistent a delusion would bring our rationality in question, leading to collapse of the credibility of the life of the mind. Nor does appeal to a moral principle such as the Golden Rule as though it were an axiom solve the problem. For, to love neighbour as self and cherish thus do no harm, implies we OUGHT to do such. It assumes and is rooted in the reality of oughtness, it does not provide a ground for it. Fear of retaliation by clans or by state policing agencies or social shunning does not answer either, such are -- if treated as foundational -- little more than appeals to might and manipulation/ Which opens the door to nihilism. Attacking the concept of foundation or rootedness does not help either. For first, foundations must be coherent logically and dynamically, and able to bear the super-incumbent weight of what is erected on them. The root of a tree is inter alia its foundation. And what is being pointed to is that knowledge is warranted, credibly true belief. So, warrant must be provided leading to a regress from A to B to C etc. Infinite regress being unattainable as endlessness cannot be traversed in finite stage steps, and empty circularity of P => Q and Q => P being futile, we face the issue of finitely remote, worldview grounding first plausibles. (None of this is new nor is this unique to me; I am summarising from thousands of years of serious thought. And yes I agree with moderate foundherentism and with the significance of abductive reasoning by inference to best explanation at worldview level. The attempt . . . we can read between the lines IE (and the penumbra of fever swamp attack sites joined to cyber and on the ground stalking speak for themselves) . . . to tag as oh it's that IDiot from the Caribbean, KF we can point to him, sneer and dismiss fails. Fails in a telling way that reveals thoughts and intents of the heart.) The IS-OUGHT gap issue is real, and it can only be addressed at world root level. The God of ethical theism is on the table as a serious candidate. It is further claimed that this is the best and indeed the only adequate candidate. To refute such, simply provide a second serious candidate and then let us address comparative difficulties. That has been on the table for months and years. That the sort of rhetoric we have been seeing is the resort in reply speaks for itself. The challenge remains, answer to the is-ought gap. KF PS: Aleta, re-labelling serious worldview and world root philosophical considerations as "religion" with the pejorative dismissive tainting that is commonly attached does not change the reality that there is a pivotal philosophical challenge on the table hinged to our inescapably morally governed constitution by nature as responsible, rational human beings. That challenge is to be addressed, and in the context that oughtness is foundational to law, justice and sound community. As we are now beginning to find out the hard way. As a hint, a pivotal point is that God, if he is, is necessary, ontologically connected to the framework for a world being possible or actual. A serious candidate necessary being will therefore either be impossible or else actual in any manifested real world. Atheism therefore pivots on the implicit view that God is an impossible being. A tough row to hoe. PPS: A flying spaghetti monster is thus not a serious candidate world root being, being a composite, material entity. In fact, such was put up as a rhetorical parody of God, and its flaws simply point out that this was put up by people who did not bother to do their philosophical homework (and too often dismiss the point that such needs to be done). Pastafarianism, so called, is not a serious candidate to be a religion. Indeed that name echoes the name of Haile Selassie, Ras Tafari [a ducal title], Christian king and Emperor in Ethiopia [which nation proclaimed that Christ is victor], who on realising that there were ill informed people trying to worship him as Messiah, sent Ethiopian Orthodox missionaries to try to gently instruct such.kairosfocus_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply