He won. The “West Wing” scenario played out exactly as–
Uh oh.
Has anyone checked on Joe Biden?
PAD
456 comments on “I’ll be darned”
Re: Is religion inherently irrational?
Well, it can be, especially in terms of the reasoning it employs to defend itself, however there are some aspects of it that are quite rational. Catholic Commandment 2, 3, 9 & 10 are either somewhat irrational, or are defended or applied by some people in an irrational manner. But Commandments 5, 6, & 7 are pretty rational. Unless of course, you defend them not by saying that they are moral, but by saying that God wants it that way, which is not the most rational argument one could employ.
Faith is irrational.
Faith is irrational.
“Catholic Commandment 2, 3, 9 & 10”?
The idea that religion is subject to faith and should not be subject to rational examination is a good compromise to avoid religious arguments. It
enables religious people to live with science that in the past would have been considered to oppose religious beliefs. But this compromise doesn’t always work. Religion can be and is subject to rational discussion by philosophy, archeology, anthropology, history, biblical exegesis, sociology etc.
re Obama:
hxxp://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm
I can respect the positions outlined here.
Preferring bipartisan compromise over partisan conflict on this issue seems to be consistent with the platform Obama presented during the campaign.
Moreover, I prefer my politician be smart over being right all the time.
“I’m not saying he had to run around saying he wanted gay marriage and he wanted it now–just say it didn’t matter to him one way or another, he wasn’t going to take a stand on something that doesn’t concern him and the country has bigger fish to fry blah blah. He would have still won. If it cost him a few close states like NC–still wins. And he’d have the satisfaction of knowing he actually showed some courage.”
But before you said he should have spoken up against proposition 8. You’re also assuming that the outcome of this election was more certain than it was.
“The standing theory at the time was that slavery wasn’t self-sustaining; that’s one reason the expansion of slavery into the territories was such a live issue up until the Civil War, as it was assumed that the institution would die out if it were confined geographically. There are good reasons to think that was actually wrong (exhibit 1: viable tobacco fields in the Upper South right now), but they acted based on their beliefs. A fair number of people (including Abraham Lincoln) were gradual emancipationists– they were willing to wait it out.”
Which shows that you can’t always expect change to occur on its own.
“find a way to work medieval England into this somehow”
Please do.
——-
Happy Birthday Jerry.
“find a way to work medieval England into this somehow”
Ok, discuss the impact of faith and “The Church” on eveyday life in 12th Century Sussex County?
“find a way to work medieval England into this somehow”
Ok, discuss the impact of faith and “The Church” on eveyday life in 12th Century Sussex County?
“Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was a raging racist and misogynist”
Was he racist and mysogynist above or below the norm of his time?
But before you said he should have spoken up against proposition 8. You’re also assuming that the outcome of this election was more certain than it was.
Well, actually he DID speak up against Prop 8. The problem was, he also specifically said he was against gay marriage. Which makes almost as much sense as being against gay marriage and being against Prop 8, though I think that would be the preferred combo.
A lot of people who voted for Obama voted for prop 8. It wasn’t a difficult contortion since they could correctly reason that A-Obama told them gay marriage was wrong and B- prop 8 would disallow this wrong.
Mind you, again I have to state–I think Obama is genuinely against gay marriage on religious grounds. I take him at his word. I wish it were different but, that being the case, it disappoints but does not provoke outrage that he treated the prop 8 issue as he did. In fact, given his opinion on the issue of gay marriage, his opposing prop 8 was something to celebrate, even if he didn’t spend a lot of time on it. Now, on the other hand, if PAD is right and this is just a cynical posture to secure votes…my opinion drops precipitously. Good God, why wouldn’t it?
This isn’t someone pretending to be a Mets fan just to win votes, folks. We’re talking about people’s lives.
But before you said he should have spoken up against proposition 8. You’re also assuming that the outcome of this election was more certain than it was.
Well, actually he DID speak up against Prop 8. The problem was, he also specifically said he was against gay marriage. Which makes almost as much sense as being against gay marriage and being against Prop 8, though I think that would be the preferred combo.
A lot of people who voted for Obama voted for prop 8. It wasn’t a difficult contortion since they could correctly reason that A-Obama told them gay marriage was wrong and B- prop 8 would disallow this wrong.
Mind you, again I have to state–I think Obama is genuinely against gay marriage on religious grounds. I take him at his word. I wish it were different but, that being the case, it disappoints but does not provoke outrage that he treated the prop 8 issue as he did. In fact, given his opinion on the issue of gay marriage, his opposing prop 8 was something to celebrate, even if he didn’t spend a lot of time on it. Now, on the other hand, if PAD is right and this is just a cynical posture to secure votes…my opinion drops precipitously. Good God, why wouldn’t it?
This isn’t someone pretending to be a Mets fan just to win votes, folks. We’re talking about people’s lives.
“Well, actually he DID speak up against Prop 8. The problem was, he also specifically said he was against gay marriage. Which makes almost as much sense as being against gay marriage and being against Prop 8, though I think that would be the preferred combo.”
It makes perfect sense. He believes his religion does not sanction gay marriage, but he doesn’t want the state to prevent gay people from marrying. Perhaps he even believes that the constitution does guarantee the right to gay marriage although he wouldn’t consider it sanctioned by his religion.
“A lot of people who voted for Obama voted for prop 8. It wasn’t a difficult contortion since they could correctly reason that A-Obama told them gay marriage was wrong and B- prop 8 would disallow this wrong.”
I know Obama is seen as a messianic figure, but I would find it strange if his supported preferred to ignore his stated political/legal opposition to prop. 8 and follow his personal religious beliefs. I also doubt anybody voted for the proposition because of what Obama said, or that hey would have done otherwise if he said that his religious belief does accept gay marriage.
“Well, actually he DID speak up against Prop 8. The problem was, he also specifically said he was against gay marriage. Which makes almost as much sense as being against gay marriage and being against Prop 8, though I think that would be the preferred combo.”
It makes perfect sense. He believes his religion does not sanction gay marriage, but he doesn’t want the state to prevent gay people from marrying. Perhaps he even believes that the constitution does guarantee the right to gay marriage although he wouldn’t consider it sanctioned by his religion.
“A lot of people who voted for Obama voted for prop 8. It wasn’t a difficult contortion since they could correctly reason that A-Obama told them gay marriage was wrong and B- prop 8 would disallow this wrong.”
I know Obama is seen as a messianic figure, but I would find it strange if his supported preferred to ignore his stated political/legal opposition to prop. 8 and follow his personal religious beliefs. I also doubt anybody voted for the proposition because of what Obama said, or that hey would have done otherwise if he said that his religious belief does accept gay marriage.
Posted by Mike at November 11, 2008 10:02 PM
“””Second guessing a man’s choices, unless you’ve had to make the exact same choice in the exact same circumstances, is easy. But not necessarily accurate or fair.”
Well, I guess President Bush is off the hook then, because nobody on this blog has had to make the same choices. That’s good to know.””
“Not necessarily” and “not under any circumstance” aren’t phrases that can be applied interchangeably. You must have missed that day in law school when they covered conditional qualifiers.”
I realised after posting that I’d had a word salad moment. What I meant to say was:
Second guessing a man’s choices is easy, but unless you’ve had to make the exact same choice in the exact same circumstances it’s not necessarily going to be an accurate or fair guess.
Sigh. It was one o’clock in the morning, and we’ve already established I’m bordering on sealion dementia… The defence rests.
People are throwing out heavy words like liar, bigot, hypocrite and coward, so it seemed worthwhile to try and get some perspective here.
Or does being passionately against prejudice allow us to be passionately judgemental?
BTW, medieval England? Two words, Magna and Carta… We got your Bill of Rights, right here bub!
Cheers.
Re: Is religion inherently irrational?
Well, it can be, especially in terms of the reasoning it employs to defend itself…
You are literally trying to use the application of reason as a disqualifier for rationality. That qualifies as a complete departure from reason and rationality in itself.
…however there are some aspects of it that are quite rational. Catholic Commandment 2, 3, 9 & 10 are either somewhat irrational, or are defended or applied by some people in an irrational manner. But Commandments 5, 6, & 7 are pretty rational. Unless of course, you defend them not by saying that they are moral, but by saying that God wants it that way, which is not the most rational argument one could employ.
You are trying to use the words verifiable and rational interchangeably. They are not synonyms.
Re: Is religion inherently irrational?
Well, it can be, especially in terms of the reasoning it employs to defend itself…
You are literally trying to use the application of reason as a disqualifier for rationality. That qualifies as a complete departure from reason and rationality in itself.
…however there are some aspects of it that are quite rational. Catholic Commandment 2, 3, 9 & 10 are either somewhat irrational, or are defended or applied by some people in an irrational manner. But Commandments 5, 6, & 7 are pretty rational. Unless of course, you defend them not by saying that they are moral, but by saying that God wants it that way, which is not the most rational argument one could employ.
You are trying to use the words verifiable and rational interchangeably. They are not synonyms.
Faith is irrational.
Experience is also irrational. As is verifiability.
It’s very simple: the contrast to reason is experience, and the contrast to experience is reason. Luigi isn’t getting his money’s worth from SVA if he doesn’t pick this up. He sees this principle in practice every day of class.
Faith is irrational.
Experience is also irrational. As is verifiability.
It’s very simple: the contrast to reason is experience, and the contrast to experience is reason. Luigi isn’t getting his money’s worth from SVA if he doesn’t pick this up. He sees this principle in practice every day of class.
Was wondering if anyone saw this… I just came across it now. Bartlet meets Obama, by Aaron Sorkin:
No, faith is just fine and dandy. It’s the people and what they do with faith and religions in general that is irrational and sometimes dangerous.
Faith at it’s best is an incredibly powerful and beautiful thing. It has sustained people through trials and pains who would have fallen without it. Can it be hideously ugly? Yes it can. But the truth is that any tool used maliciously can be ugly.
Just about everyone here has an artist that they think makes the most beautiful art in the world. The artists use their tools to make masterpieces in various mediums that you all rave about. It’s art. It’s beautiful.
Well, I’m sure that you’ve all seen artwork that looks vile to you. You’ve all probably seen artwork that downright disgusts you and that you’ve stated is “not art” before walking away.
The medium and the tools haven’t changed. It’s only the character of the artist that’s changed. I can even take it to the extreme. If I so wanted to I could take the tools of an artist and turn them into instruments of torture and murder. I could probably take my horror movie loving mind and come up with ways to mutilate the human body in ways that would probably make most of you turn white and reintroduce your stomach contents back into the world in short order.
It’s not the tools, it’s the human who wields those tools. It’s not the religion that’s irrational, bigoted or ugly. It’s the human who chooses to take his or her religion and inflict it upon others in a vile or violent way who is irrational, bigoted or ugly.
Religion isn’t the problem. As with so many things out there it’s the people that are the problem. There are many people who are religious who believe that their faith is only their faith and don’t bludgeon others with it like a club.
It’s interesting that so many who like to talk of their liberal nature and their tolerance want to be so intolerant and hateful towards another group or a faith as a whole. You’d think that this blog had been filled with a Mirror Universe crowd of Right Wing radio talk show hosts and bloggers by the look of it. Right now the blog is starting to read like a conservative blog talking about how the Muslim faith is evil and wicked and and all the people who practice it are dámņëd to hëll.
Happy Birthday Jerry.
Thanks.
Alan Coil: “Faith is irrational.”
No, faith is just fine and dandy. It’s the people and what they do with faith and religions in general that is irrational and sometimes dangerous.
Faith at it’s best is an incredibly powerful and beautiful thing. It has sustained people through trials and pains who would have fallen without it. Can it be hideously ugly? Yes it can. But the truth is that any tool used maliciously can be ugly.
Just about everyone here has an artist that they think makes the most beautiful art in the world. The artists use their tools to make masterpieces in various mediums that you all rave about. It’s art. It’s beautiful.
Well, I’m sure that you’ve all seen artwork that looks vile to you. You’ve all probably seen artwork that downright disgusts you and that you’ve stated is “not art” before walking away.
The medium and the tools haven’t changed. It’s only the character of the artist that’s changed. I can even take it to the extreme. If I so wanted to I could take the tools of an artist and turn them into instruments of torture and murder. I could probably take my horror movie loving mind and come up with ways to mutilate the human body in ways that would probably make most of you turn white and reintroduce your stomach contents back into the world in short order.
It’s not the tools, it’s the human who wields those tools. It’s not the religion that’s irrational, bigoted or ugly. It’s the human who chooses to take his or her religion and inflict it upon others in a vile or violent way who is irrational, bigoted or ugly.
Religion isn’t the problem. As with so many things out there it’s the people that are the problem. There are many people who are religious who believe that their faith is only their faith and don’t bludgeon others with it like a club.
It’s interesting that so many who like to talk of their liberal nature and their tolerance want to be so intolerant and hateful towards another group or a faith as a whole. You’d think that this blog had been filled with a Mirror Universe crowd of Right Wing radio talk show hosts and bloggers by the look of it. Right now the blog is starting to read like a conservative blog talking about how the Muslim faith is evil and wicked and and all the people who practice it are dámņëd to hëll.
Happy Birthday Jerry.
Thanks.
prop 8 is turning into the gift that keeps on taking. now we have radical “anarchist gay” groups–who, if one goes to their websites, explicitly reject the idea of gay marriage (!)–acting like first class jáçkáššëš. One would question how the hëll they expect to win hearts and minds but it’s becoming clear that this is not at all their intent. Makes for great negative ads though and you can bet that the next time this comes up for a vote you will see ads by the anti-gay forces that show angry screaming zealots attacking little old ladies and pulling fire alarms in church. Not to mention calls for the blacklisting of people who contributed money to the yes on 8 cause. Disastrous. If the election were held today prop 8 would probably pass by a larger margin.
the gay rights movement needs to grab back the spotlight from these parasites who are just using the issue for their own goals–which is not civil rights at all, just making the world safer for their rotten personalities. Gay marriage will pass when it becomes about good and decent people who love each other and just want to live their lives. The face of the next Proposition should be a loving gay couple with a mortgage and kids and the same joys and problems that any other couple has. The anti gay ads will feature hate filled faces tearing a paper cross from an elderly woman on camera.
(I’d love to think these idiots were actually doing some black ops display to make people think they were gay and thus make gays look bad but we’ve seen too much evidence of the fact that there are enough stupid people in the world that inventing them becomes unnecessary).
prop 8 is turning into the gift that keeps on taking. now we have radical “anarchist gay” groups–who, if one goes to their websites, explicitly reject the idea of gay marriage (!)–acting like first class jáçkáššëš. One would question how the hëll they expect to win hearts and minds but it’s becoming clear that this is not at all their intent. Makes for great negative ads though and you can bet that the next time this comes up for a vote you will see ads by the anti-gay forces that show angry screaming zealots attacking little old ladies and pulling fire alarms in church. Not to mention calls for the blacklisting of people who contributed money to the yes on 8 cause. Disastrous. If the election were held today prop 8 would probably pass by a larger margin.
the gay rights movement needs to grab back the spotlight from these parasites who are just using the issue for their own goals–which is not civil rights at all, just making the world safer for their rotten personalities. Gay marriage will pass when it becomes about good and decent people who love each other and just want to live their lives. The face of the next Proposition should be a loving gay couple with a mortgage and kids and the same joys and problems that any other couple has. The anti gay ads will feature hate filled faces tearing a paper cross from an elderly woman on camera.
(I’d love to think these idiots were actually doing some black ops display to make people think they were gay and thus make gays look bad but we’ve seen too much evidence of the fact that there are enough stupid people in the world that inventing them becomes unnecessary).
“Faith is irrational.”
No, faith is just fine and dandy.
Those two statements aren’t mutually exclusive, Jerry. “Irrational” does not automatically mean “bad” — it just means that reason doesn’t apply. We all have particular likes and dislikes that aren’t rational, and that’s fine — it’s putting those irrational ideas into policy that’s unjustifiable on any reasonable grounds.
And happy belated birthday!
“Faith is irrational.”
No, faith is just fine and dandy.
Those two statements aren’t mutually exclusive, Jerry. “Irrational” does not automatically mean “bad” — it just means that reason doesn’t apply. We all have particular likes and dislikes that aren’t rational, and that’s fine — it’s putting those irrational ideas into policy that’s unjustifiable on any reasonable grounds.
And happy belated birthday!
Faith is trust. It is therefore iconic, and therefore rational.
Everyone here saying faith is irrational is refusing to provide their rationale for saying so. Insistence — providing your need as proof — qualifies as a complete departure from reason and rationality in itself..
n ≠ Rocket_Surgery
Faith is irrational.
Mike has faith.
Therefore, Mike is irrational.
Who has more faith than the person with no religion?
Happy 38th, Jerry. 🙂
1) Tim is right.. When we say that somebody justifies his religious beliefs on faith, what we mean is that he or she is not basing them on rational arguments. Philosophically I think it’s an excuse, because religion and god are not like art or love or other things that are not rationally justified. But on a different level I think it is better that people hold this attitude toward religion. It makes it easier for people to live together by making religion more personal. It’s much easier to deal with someone who says, “look, this is my personal belief, and I don’t need to justify it.” Than to deal with people who think they have a direct link to god, or who use weak rational arguments to justify and impose their beliefs (see intelligent design).
2) However, there are people who strut around their faithfulness as if it somehow makes them better than others. The kind who present the faithless (atheists) as untrustworthy and immoral. The same people extend faith into politics resulting in irrational politics.
3) On the other hand there are those who wear their supposed rationality as a badge of honor and look down on religious people in in fact people in general. These people are not nearly as rational as they think they are, but they don’t own up either to their own irrationality and irrational elements in the world that undermine their convictions.
4) “…however there are some aspects of it that are quite rational. Catholic Commandment 2, 3, 9 & 10 are either somewhat irrational, or are defended or applied by some people in an irrational manner. But Commandments 5, 6, & 7 are pretty rational. Unless of course, you defend them not by saying that they are moral, but by saying that God wants it that way, which is not the most rational argument one could employ.”
If you break it down, morality, both religious or secular, is not rational at its core. I thin that it is more rationally justified to care about the equality and happiness of homosexuals then to care about the attitude of an old religion toward homosexuals. But ultimately neither is completely rational. Their is no purely rational reason to care about the equality of homosexuals. We believe in equality.
4) re: anarchists. If there is a gene for extremism, cult mentality, rigid faith and narrow mindedness, it is found both in the left and the right. Anarchism is the lefty version for people who are too left wing to be members of an extreme messianic church.
“Their is no purely rational reason to care about the equality of homosexuals. We believe in equality.”
Couldn’t you argue that caring about equality is quite rational since anything less than tolerance for all lifestyles that do no harm ensures that you yourself will be free from oppression? Or, at the very least, would protect your friends and loved ones from such things. (One advantage to not being bigoted against gays is that you will not have to face the prospect of finding out that one of your kids or best friends is gay and you are part of the reason they are having to face difficulties). Which would seem a pretty rational way to look at it.
“Their is no purely rational reason to care about the equality of homosexuals. We believe in equality.”
Couldn’t you argue that caring about equality is quite rational since anything less than tolerance for all lifestyles that do no harm ensures that you yourself will be free from oppression? Or, at the very least, would protect your friends and loved ones from such things. (One advantage to not being bigoted against gays is that you will not have to face the prospect of finding out that one of your kids or best friends is gay and you are part of the reason they are having to face difficulties). Which would seem a pretty rational way to look at it.
1) Tim is right.. When we say that somebody justifies his religious beliefs on faith, what we mean is that he or she is not basing them on rational arguments.
Words are not the things they represent. Attributing words to the things they represent is also not based on rational arguments. If they were, parrots wouldn’t be able to speak without mastering their underlying reason.
But language is literally the medium of rationality. Why then the selective application of principle to language and not religion?
Faith is no less the foundation of language than of religion. When you claim to review the English I employ here, and then strawman me with gibberish that represents no human resolve, that is you arbitrarily sabotaging others’ faith in what I say without providing any reason the verbs I use aren’t valid for the nouns they’re attributed to. It’s the fatwa of the cyber-bully.
1) Tim is right.. When we say that somebody justifies his religious beliefs on faith, what we mean is that he or she is not basing them on rational arguments.
Words are not the things they represent. Attributing words to the things they represent is also not based on rational arguments. If they were, parrots wouldn’t be able to speak without mastering their underlying reason.
But language is literally the medium of rationality. Why then the selective application of principle to language and not religion?
Faith is no less the foundation of language than of religion. When you claim to review the English I employ here, and then strawman me with gibberish that represents no human resolve, that is you arbitrarily sabotaging others’ faith in what I say without providing any reason the verbs I use aren’t valid for the nouns they’re attributed to. It’s the fatwa of the cyber-bully.
“Couldn’t you argue that caring about equality is quite rational since anything less than tolerance for all lifestyles that do no harm ensures that you yourself will be free from oppression? Or, at the very least, would protect your friends and loved ones from such things. (One advantage to not being bigoted against gays is that you will not have to face the prospect of finding out that one of your kids or best friends is gay and you are part of the reason they are having to face difficulties). Which would seem a pretty rational way to look at it.”
It depends on what you mean when you say rational.
In everyday speech, Acting out of self interest is considered rational but acting out of altruistic reasons is considered beyond rational, while acting for the sake of God is of questioned rationality. Acting in the name of Alla and his prophet Muhammad is considered pretty irrational.
But in a more strict philosophical sense there is no rational basis to care for anything. So even if I said that I support equality for gays because I care about their well being, the well being of my loved ones, or my own well being, in none of the cases it would actually be rational, because why does my well being or the well being of others matter? There is no rational reason other than that I care about my well being (which not all people do anyway).
Moreover, when people make moral choices they don’t really go around calculating their own self interest. They do that too. But there are also other less calculated aspects that go into the equation.
When we try to convince people that gays deserve equal right of marriage we don’t really appeal to rationality but to empathy.
—————-
Mike, back in the good old days I had a lot of free time, as I was not writing a masters thesis in medieval history. That gave me the time and the pleasure of figuring out what you were trying to say. But now unfortunately I no longer have the time or the energy to really figure out what you are trying to say. 75% of the time I’m not really sure what you’re talking about, so I have no opinion for or against it. You might as well be speaking Yiddish. Oh well, we’ll always have poopy pants.
Thank you for failing to find any obvious flaws in what I’ve said in this thread.
In everyday speech, Acting out of self interest is considered rational but acting out of altruistic reasons is considered beyond rational, while acting for the sake of God is of questioned rationality. Acting in the name of Alla and his prophet Muhammad is considered pretty irrational.
But in a more strict philosophical sense there is no rational basis to care for anything.
Citing conventional wisdom as proof of rationality is unfaithful to reality.
Urgency is a foundation of emotions. Irrationality is also a foundation of emotions. Because of the obvious emotional component of acting in one’s self-interest, it’s probably more accurate to say that acting in our self-interest is a privileged irrationality.
Gezuntheit
Gezuntheit
Micha: If you break it down, morality, both religious or secular, is not rational at its core.
Luigi Novi: Secular morality can certainly be rational, if you understand the reason why it originated, and depending on the criteria by which it manifests itself. Morality is a system we created through intellectual assessment to codify fundamental, pre-moral drives that evolved within us to promote the survival of individuals, and the group, with larger and larger groups in mind (the self, the family, the tribe, the society, the state, the globe and biosphere) as we progressed intellectually as a species.
In Western, post-Enlightenment civilization, it seems to me that at least in theory, that it is a higher moral purpose to seek one’s survival, happiness and liberty in mind, and and not seek happiness and liberty when it leads to someone else’s unhappiness or loss of survival or liberty.
That seems fairly rational to me, since it serves a specific purpose that can be objectively measured: Maximizing survival, liberty and happiness, and minimizing the loss of those things. 🙂
It only seems irrational to those who eschew modern, post-Enlightenment principles of self-determination and liberty, and well, that’s a given. Under their system, the survival, liberty and happiness of more people is sacrificed for the survival, liberty and happiness of the few. This does not seem rational to me.
Micha: If you break it down, morality, both religious or secular, is not rational at its core.
Luigi Novi: Secular morality can certainly be rational, if you understand the reason why it originated, and depending on the criteria by which it manifests itself. Morality is a system we created through intellectual assessment to codify fundamental, pre-moral drives that evolved within us to promote the survival of individuals, and the group, with larger and larger groups in mind (the self, the family, the tribe, the society, the state, the globe and biosphere) as we progressed intellectually as a species.
In Western, post-Enlightenment civilization, it seems to me that at least in theory, that it is a higher moral purpose to seek one’s survival, happiness and liberty in mind, and and not seek happiness and liberty when it leads to someone else’s unhappiness or loss of survival or liberty.
That seems fairly rational to me, since it serves a specific purpose that can be objectively measured: Maximizing survival, liberty and happiness, and minimizing the loss of those things. 🙂
It only seems irrational to those who eschew modern, post-Enlightenment principles of self-determination and liberty, and well, that’s a given. Under their system, the survival, liberty and happiness of more people is sacrificed for the survival, liberty and happiness of the few. This does not seem rational to me.
Was he racist and mysogynist above or below the norm of his time?
He was pretty appalling. Read Notes on the State of Virginia some time. He has a (cough, cough) interesting section where he talks about the races, opining that Indians just need a little cultivation to become civilized, but that blacks are basically hopeless and inferior. He was greatly opposed to racial mixing, with the possible exception of Sally Hemings. Sally Hemings, by the way, was apparently his late wife’s half sister. The man had issues.
David, unfortunately, I’m not sure these opinions were far from the norm at the time. Wikipedia gives the impression that Jefferson was better than the norm because he was conflicted on slavery, and they provide a quote suggesting he changed his position on blacks. But I don’t know how reliable wikipedia is on this subject, and I haven’t studied any primay documents.
——————
Luigi, this is a complex issue. The first thing you have to realize is that I’m making a phylosophical point, not a political one. I’m not defending or opposing a political position on morality here.
Secondly, we are talking about rationallity in several senses here.
1) “Secular morality can certainly be rational, if you understand the reason why it originated, and depending on the criteria by which it manifests itself. Morality is a system we created through intellectual assessment to codify fundamental, pre-moral drives that evolved within us to promote the survival of individuals, and the group, with larger and larger groups in mind (the self, the family, the tribe, the society, the state, the globe and biosphere) as we progressed intellectually as a species.”
That’s the first sense. Which is looking at morality as a phenomenon, understanding it with rational tools — evolution, antropology, sociology etc., instead of as something divine.
2) “In Western, post-Enlightenment civilization, it seems to me that at least in theory, that it is a higher moral purpose to seek one’s survival, happiness and liberty in mind, and and not seek happiness and liberty when it leads to someone else’s unhappiness or loss of survival or liberty.
That seems fairly rational to me, since it serves a specific purpose that can be objectively measured: Maximizing survival, liberty and happiness, and minimizing the loss of those things. :-)”
Here there is a 2nd sense. You set a goal, survival, happiness, and then try to ratiopnally figure out what are the best ways to acheive these goals, instead of simply following traditional ways of doing things regardless of their effect on said goals.
3) The third sense is, like I said before, the one applied in everyday speech. Usually, we would say that one pursuing happiness is acting rationally, while one who is self distructive or pursing his own misery is irrational. (although we see that happening all the time).
4) “It only seems irrational to those who eschew modern, post-Enlightenment principles of self-determination and liberty, and well, that’s a given. Under their system, the survival, liberty and happiness of more people is sacrificed for the survival, liberty and happiness of the few. This does not seem rational to me.”
Even in the context of rational discussion, both on the philosophical and on the everyday political level, and even agreeing that happiness is the goal, people disagree about what is the more rational course of action or ethical system to pursue that goal. So the disagreement is not between rational and irrational, but about whose proposals are more rational.
But this is not the point I was making.
5) This brings us to the fifth philosophical narrower sense. This is the complicated part, because we now how to ask: are survival or happiness rational in the stricter sense? You see, here we hit a wall. You can tell me that, rationally speaking, doing something will increase or decrease survival or happiness. But if I ask, why does survival or happiness matter? This cannot be explained by appealing to rationality/reason (in the stricter sense) alone. The phrase, survival is good, is common sense, but it is not a necessary logical truth. It is not based on rationality but on something else.
This is an interesting philosophical point, but it’s only partially relevant to the political discussions were having. I do thing it is unwise to divide people into rational and irrational, and it is better to be aware that rationality is not that simple. Like I said, I don’t think religious beliefs or faith are justified on the strict philosophical sense, but I don’t think religious people are irrational, and that religion is devoid of rationality.
I do support life liberty and the pusuit of happiness, and I can rationally defend both my moral and political views on this, but only up to the philosophical wall I mentioned above. Here I can only say that life, liberty and happiness of people matter to me just as god matters to the religious.
I do think that it is more rational to base your morality on something inside the world of human experience (happiness of humans) then in something outside the world of human experience (god).But the basis of both systems is not in itself rational. And I think that the differences between religious and not religious on morality or not that different once we step away from the deep philosophical to more everyday life. We all care about people and we all use rationality in are arguments, although not always. Our disagreements are in that conrext.
Micha
Secular morality can certainly be rational, if you understand the reason why it originated, and depending on the criteria by which it manifests itself.
Verifiability is irrelevant to rationality. If that were the case, no language could be rational. No word is interchangeable with the thing it represents.
Therefore, verifiability isn’t a reason to allow for the rationality of one set of moral standards, but not the other. Wrong doesn’t mean irrational.
Secular morality can certainly be rational, if you understand the reason why it originated, and depending on the criteria by which it manifests itself.
Verifiability is irrelevant to rationality. If that were the case, no language could be rational. No word is interchangeable with the thing it represents.
Therefore, verifiability isn’t a reason to allow for the rationality of one set of moral standards, but not the other. Wrong doesn’t mean irrational.
Micha, I don’t see where I made a political point. The statement of yours I was responding to was regarding whether morality is rational at its core. My position is that it mostly certainly can be. I’m not sure which usage of the word you distinguish that precludes this.
Yes, people disagree about what is rational. But I already addressed that above. Often, the definition/usage that some people adhere to tends to be self-serving rather than one that both or all sides can agree upon as a matter of common language. Define what rationality is, or at least, agree upon an operational usage for the purpose of a discussion or debate, and it is certainly possible that it can describe morality. 🙂
Micha, I don’t see where I made a political point. The statement of yours I was responding to was regarding whether morality is rational at its core. My position is that it mostly certainly can be. I’m not sure which usage of the word you distinguish that precludes this.
Yes, people disagree about what is rational. But I already addressed that above. Often, the definition/usage that some people adhere to tends to be self-serving rather than one that both or all sides can agree upon as a matter of common language. Define what rationality is, or at least, agree upon an operational usage for the purpose of a discussion or debate, and it is certainly possible that it can describe morality. 🙂
“I’m not sure which usage of the word you distinguish that precludes this.”
The fourth. Look up David Hume on that.
The definition of rationality and the arguments about what course of action is rational are two seperate issues. One point I was making is that people might present rational arguments to support opposing positions. The other more philosophical point is that morality itself is not rational because good or happiness are not rational in the stricktest philosophical sense.
Here, I’ll try to illustrate both points.
Let’s look at two moral positions:
A: It is wrong to deny gays the happiness of marriage as it does not cause any harm that would justify denying them the good of marriage.
B: It is right to deny gays the good of marriage as it is harmful for society.
Both positions are structured in a rational manner. Both are interested in minimizing harm and maximizing happiness. And both present rational cause and effect arguments on why a certain course of action would increase happiness or harm.
The reason you and I reject the 2nd argument is not because it is structured irrationaly, but because we don’t agree with it’s assumption that gay marriage causes harm to society. However if the assumption was true we would consider B a rational argument.
However, we suspect that this assumption is in fact a rationalization hiding behind it the real irrational reason C: that some people are unhappy with the idea of homosexuality.
This is why we consider argument B to be irrational. and I think we’re both an agreement about that.
But note the philosophical point.
The basic components of arguments A, B, C are happiness and harm. But happiness and harm are not objective or logical. They are subjective states of mind.
In order for there to even be a conversation between position A and B, we must agree that happiness is good and harm is bad. But this is one thing we can’t prove using rational arguments. This is something we just accept as a result of our shared humanity.
We also cannot give a rational argument why the happiness or unhappiness of others — in this case gays or society — should matter. We simply believe that it does because of our shared humanity.
Which is also the third point I made to Bill. Ultimately our appeal on behalf of gays is not based on rationality but on empathy.
The same is true about other moral questions. We don’t murder other people not because somebody presented us with a logical argument about mudering, we do it because we care about life. a sociopath might understand logic, but he doesn’t understand that. We treat blacks as equals not because somebody constructed a rational argument about equality, but because blacks spoke up and appealed to our shared humanity — our emotional wish to be treated as equals by others.
I think we need a Federal law allowing Gay marriage.
State’s Rights is just an argument for ignoring Federal law, which could lead to laws in a few states creating equal-but-separate drinking fountains for Gays and straights.
I think we need a Federal law allowing Gay marriage.
State’s Rights is just an argument for ignoring Federal law, which could lead to laws in a few states creating equal-but-separate drinking fountains for Gays and straights.
I think we need a Federal law allowing Gay marriage.
Don’t think that will happen. When they voted for the Defense of Marriage Act it passed with margins usually reserved for “Resolved: Mothers Are Good”. The ones who aren’t in favor of gay marriage still aren’t in favor of it and most of the others are too chickenshit to do anything about it…just hope that the Supreme Court takes it out of their hands.
I think we need a Federal law allowing Gay marriage.
Don’t think that will happen. When they voted for the Defense of Marriage Act it passed with margins usually reserved for “Resolved: Mothers Are Good”. The ones who aren’t in favor of gay marriage still aren’t in favor of it and most of the others are too chickenshit to do anything about it…just hope that the Supreme Court takes it out of their hands.
I think we need a Federal law allowing Gay marriage.
State’s Rights is just an argument for ignoring Federal law, which could lead to laws in a few states creating equal-but-separate drinking fountains for Gays and straights.
I don’t think a Federal law ordaining gay marriage would be legal. Certainly Congress could decree that the Federal government would recognize gay marriage for Federal purposes (tax, etc.) but I don’t think a Federal mandate to the States proclaiming gay marriage legal would get very far.
And no, “States’ rights” is not just a code for discrimination. Granted, the doctrine was abused during First and Second Reconstruction, but there is more to it than that. Like it or not, the United States does have a federal system. States do, in fact, have prerogatives. The Federal government is supposed to be one of limited jurisdiction, and about once a decade the Supreme Court actually enforces that theory. In a sense you’re right that it’s an argument for ignoring Federal law: it’s an argument that a Federal law governing a state-level issue is invalid. On the other hand, it’s an argument in favor of applying the ultimate Federal law, since the plain text of the US Constitution establishes that as a valid line of argument. The whole premise of the US system is that some decisions are left in the hands of the States, and others are placed in the purview of the United States as a whole. Civil rights have become an increasingly Federalized issue, but domestic relations have always been a quintessential state issue. Saying that it’s still a state issue is not even remotely a dumb argument. And it’s not always the case that the Federal government is the repository of all that’s just and true and wise in American governance, unless you have a higher opinion of the period 2002-2006 than I suspect you do. Or possibly a longer period– remember that DOMA is itself a Federal law, and that the Feds have reserved the right to prosecute medicinal marijuana, state law notwithstanding.
The drinking fountains claim is a bit over the top though, don’t you think? I’ve yet to see any significant number of people in any jurisdiction trying to institute sexual-orientation-based apartheid, and the insignificant numbers are too busy protesting funerals to get up to much mischief. We can agree that gay marriage bans are bad things, but saying they’re the first step on the road to sexual-orientation Jim Crow is not an argument I take seriously. Basically they either roll the clock back six months (California) or not at all (Arizona), and in neither case do I recall a tyranny being in effect earlier this year.
• 
Re: Is religion inherently irrational?
Well, it can be, especially in terms of the reasoning it employs to defend itself, however there are some aspects of it that are quite rational. Catholic Commandment 2, 3, 9 & 10 are either somewhat irrational, or are defended or applied by some people in an irrational manner. But Commandments 5, 6, & 7 are pretty rational. Unless of course, you defend them not by saying that they are moral, but by saying that God wants it that way, which is not the most rational argument one could employ.
Faith is irrational.
Faith is irrational.
“Catholic Commandment 2, 3, 9 & 10”?
The idea that religion is subject to faith and should not be subject to rational examination is a good compromise to avoid religious arguments. It
enables religious people to live with science that in the past would have been considered to oppose religious beliefs. But this compromise doesn’t always work. Religion can be and is subject to rational discussion by philosophy, archeology, anthropology, history, biblical exegesis, sociology etc.
re Obama:
hxxp://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm
I can respect the positions outlined here.
Preferring bipartisan compromise over partisan conflict on this issue seems to be consistent with the platform Obama presented during the campaign.
Moreover, I prefer my politician be smart over being right all the time.
“I’m not saying he had to run around saying he wanted gay marriage and he wanted it now–just say it didn’t matter to him one way or another, he wasn’t going to take a stand on something that doesn’t concern him and the country has bigger fish to fry blah blah. He would have still won. If it cost him a few close states like NC–still wins. And he’d have the satisfaction of knowing he actually showed some courage.”
But before you said he should have spoken up against proposition 8. You’re also assuming that the outcome of this election was more certain than it was.
“The standing theory at the time was that slavery wasn’t self-sustaining; that’s one reason the expansion of slavery into the territories was such a live issue up until the Civil War, as it was assumed that the institution would die out if it were confined geographically. There are good reasons to think that was actually wrong (exhibit 1: viable tobacco fields in the Upper South right now), but they acted based on their beliefs. A fair number of people (including Abraham Lincoln) were gradual emancipationists– they were willing to wait it out.”
Which shows that you can’t always expect change to occur on its own.
“find a way to work medieval England into this somehow”
Please do.
——-
Happy Birthday Jerry.
“find a way to work medieval England into this somehow”
Ok, discuss the impact of faith and “The Church” on eveyday life in 12th Century Sussex County?
“find a way to work medieval England into this somehow”
Ok, discuss the impact of faith and “The Church” on eveyday life in 12th Century Sussex County?
“Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was a raging racist and misogynist”
Was he racist and mysogynist above or below the norm of his time?
But before you said he should have spoken up against proposition 8. You’re also assuming that the outcome of this election was more certain than it was.
Well, actually he DID speak up against Prop 8. The problem was, he also specifically said he was against gay marriage. Which makes almost as much sense as being against gay marriage and being against Prop 8, though I think that would be the preferred combo.
A lot of people who voted for Obama voted for prop 8. It wasn’t a difficult contortion since they could correctly reason that A-Obama told them gay marriage was wrong and B- prop 8 would disallow this wrong.
Mind you, again I have to state–I think Obama is genuinely against gay marriage on religious grounds. I take him at his word. I wish it were different but, that being the case, it disappoints but does not provoke outrage that he treated the prop 8 issue as he did. In fact, given his opinion on the issue of gay marriage, his opposing prop 8 was something to celebrate, even if he didn’t spend a lot of time on it. Now, on the other hand, if PAD is right and this is just a cynical posture to secure votes…my opinion drops precipitously. Good God, why wouldn’t it?
This isn’t someone pretending to be a Mets fan just to win votes, folks. We’re talking about people’s lives.
But before you said he should have spoken up against proposition 8. You’re also assuming that the outcome of this election was more certain than it was.
Well, actually he DID speak up against Prop 8. The problem was, he also specifically said he was against gay marriage. Which makes almost as much sense as being against gay marriage and being against Prop 8, though I think that would be the preferred combo.
A lot of people who voted for Obama voted for prop 8. It wasn’t a difficult contortion since they could correctly reason that A-Obama told them gay marriage was wrong and B- prop 8 would disallow this wrong.
Mind you, again I have to state–I think Obama is genuinely against gay marriage on religious grounds. I take him at his word. I wish it were different but, that being the case, it disappoints but does not provoke outrage that he treated the prop 8 issue as he did. In fact, given his opinion on the issue of gay marriage, his opposing prop 8 was something to celebrate, even if he didn’t spend a lot of time on it. Now, on the other hand, if PAD is right and this is just a cynical posture to secure votes…my opinion drops precipitously. Good God, why wouldn’t it?
This isn’t someone pretending to be a Mets fan just to win votes, folks. We’re talking about people’s lives.
“Well, actually he DID speak up against Prop 8. The problem was, he also specifically said he was against gay marriage. Which makes almost as much sense as being against gay marriage and being against Prop 8, though I think that would be the preferred combo.”
It makes perfect sense. He believes his religion does not sanction gay marriage, but he doesn’t want the state to prevent gay people from marrying. Perhaps he even believes that the constitution does guarantee the right to gay marriage although he wouldn’t consider it sanctioned by his religion.
“A lot of people who voted for Obama voted for prop 8. It wasn’t a difficult contortion since they could correctly reason that A-Obama told them gay marriage was wrong and B- prop 8 would disallow this wrong.”
I know Obama is seen as a messianic figure, but I would find it strange if his supported preferred to ignore his stated political/legal opposition to prop. 8 and follow his personal religious beliefs. I also doubt anybody voted for the proposition because of what Obama said, or that hey would have done otherwise if he said that his religious belief does accept gay marriage.
“Well, actually he DID speak up against Prop 8. The problem was, he also specifically said he was against gay marriage. Which makes almost as much sense as being against gay marriage and being against Prop 8, though I think that would be the preferred combo.”
It makes perfect sense. He believes his religion does not sanction gay marriage, but he doesn’t want the state to prevent gay people from marrying. Perhaps he even believes that the constitution does guarantee the right to gay marriage although he wouldn’t consider it sanctioned by his religion.
“A lot of people who voted for Obama voted for prop 8. It wasn’t a difficult contortion since they could correctly reason that A-Obama told them gay marriage was wrong and B- prop 8 would disallow this wrong.”
I know Obama is seen as a messianic figure, but I would find it strange if his supported preferred to ignore his stated political/legal opposition to prop. 8 and follow his personal religious beliefs. I also doubt anybody voted for the proposition because of what Obama said, or that hey would have done otherwise if he said that his religious belief does accept gay marriage.
Posted by Mike at November 11, 2008 10:02 PM
“””Second guessing a man’s choices, unless you’ve had to make the exact same choice in the exact same circumstances, is easy. But not necessarily accurate or fair.”
Well, I guess President Bush is off the hook then, because nobody on this blog has had to make the same choices. That’s good to know.””
“Not necessarily” and “not under any circumstance” aren’t phrases that can be applied interchangeably. You must have missed that day in law school when they covered conditional qualifiers.”
I realised after posting that I’d had a word salad moment. What I meant to say was:
Second guessing a man’s choices is easy, but unless you’ve had to make the exact same choice in the exact same circumstances it’s not necessarily going to be an accurate or fair guess.
Sigh. It was one o’clock in the morning, and we’ve already established I’m bordering on sealion dementia… The defence rests.
People are throwing out heavy words like liar, bigot, hypocrite and coward, so it seemed worthwhile to try and get some perspective here.
Or does being passionately against prejudice allow us to be passionately judgemental?
BTW, medieval England? Two words, Magna and Carta… We got your Bill of Rights, right here bub!
Cheers.
You are literally trying to use the application of reason as a disqualifier for rationality. That qualifies as a complete departure from reason and rationality in itself.
You are trying to use the words verifiable and rational interchangeably. They are not synonyms.
You are literally trying to use the application of reason as a disqualifier for rationality. That qualifies as a complete departure from reason and rationality in itself.
You are trying to use the words verifiable and rational interchangeably. They are not synonyms.
Experience is also irrational. As is verifiability.
It’s very simple: the contrast to reason is experience, and the contrast to experience is reason. Luigi isn’t getting his money’s worth from SVA if he doesn’t pick this up. He sees this principle in practice every day of class.
Experience is also irrational. As is verifiability.
It’s very simple: the contrast to reason is experience, and the contrast to experience is reason. Luigi isn’t getting his money’s worth from SVA if he doesn’t pick this up. He sees this principle in practice every day of class.
Was wondering if anyone saw this… I just came across it now. Bartlet meets Obama, by Aaron Sorkin:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21dowd-sorkin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Alan Coil: “Faith is irrational.”
No, faith is just fine and dandy. It’s the people and what they do with faith and religions in general that is irrational and sometimes dangerous.
Faith at it’s best is an incredibly powerful and beautiful thing. It has sustained people through trials and pains who would have fallen without it. Can it be hideously ugly? Yes it can. But the truth is that any tool used maliciously can be ugly.
Just about everyone here has an artist that they think makes the most beautiful art in the world. The artists use their tools to make masterpieces in various mediums that you all rave about. It’s art. It’s beautiful.
Well, I’m sure that you’ve all seen artwork that looks vile to you. You’ve all probably seen artwork that downright disgusts you and that you’ve stated is “not art” before walking away.
The medium and the tools haven’t changed. It’s only the character of the artist that’s changed. I can even take it to the extreme. If I so wanted to I could take the tools of an artist and turn them into instruments of torture and murder. I could probably take my horror movie loving mind and come up with ways to mutilate the human body in ways that would probably make most of you turn white and reintroduce your stomach contents back into the world in short order.
It’s not the tools, it’s the human who wields those tools. It’s not the religion that’s irrational, bigoted or ugly. It’s the human who chooses to take his or her religion and inflict it upon others in a vile or violent way who is irrational, bigoted or ugly.
Religion isn’t the problem. As with so many things out there it’s the people that are the problem. There are many people who are religious who believe that their faith is only their faith and don’t bludgeon others with it like a club.
It’s interesting that so many who like to talk of their liberal nature and their tolerance want to be so intolerant and hateful towards another group or a faith as a whole. You’d think that this blog had been filled with a Mirror Universe crowd of Right Wing radio talk show hosts and bloggers by the look of it. Right now the blog is starting to read like a conservative blog talking about how the Muslim faith is evil and wicked and and all the people who practice it are dámņëd to hëll.
Happy Birthday Jerry.
Thanks.
Alan Coil: “Faith is irrational.”
No, faith is just fine and dandy. It’s the people and what they do with faith and religions in general that is irrational and sometimes dangerous.
Faith at it’s best is an incredibly powerful and beautiful thing. It has sustained people through trials and pains who would have fallen without it. Can it be hideously ugly? Yes it can. But the truth is that any tool used maliciously can be ugly.
Just about everyone here has an artist that they think makes the most beautiful art in the world. The artists use their tools to make masterpieces in various mediums that you all rave about. It’s art. It’s beautiful.
Well, I’m sure that you’ve all seen artwork that looks vile to you. You’ve all probably seen artwork that downright disgusts you and that you’ve stated is “not art” before walking away.
The medium and the tools haven’t changed. It’s only the character of the artist that’s changed. I can even take it to the extreme. If I so wanted to I could take the tools of an artist and turn them into instruments of torture and murder. I could probably take my horror movie loving mind and come up with ways to mutilate the human body in ways that would probably make most of you turn white and reintroduce your stomach contents back into the world in short order.
It’s not the tools, it’s the human who wields those tools. It’s not the religion that’s irrational, bigoted or ugly. It’s the human who chooses to take his or her religion and inflict it upon others in a vile or violent way who is irrational, bigoted or ugly.
Religion isn’t the problem. As with so many things out there it’s the people that are the problem. There are many people who are religious who believe that their faith is only their faith and don’t bludgeon others with it like a club.
It’s interesting that so many who like to talk of their liberal nature and their tolerance want to be so intolerant and hateful towards another group or a faith as a whole. You’d think that this blog had been filled with a Mirror Universe crowd of Right Wing radio talk show hosts and bloggers by the look of it. Right now the blog is starting to read like a conservative blog talking about how the Muslim faith is evil and wicked and and all the people who practice it are dámņëd to hëll.
Happy Birthday Jerry.
Thanks.
prop 8 is turning into the gift that keeps on taking. now we have radical “anarchist gay” groups–who, if one goes to their websites, explicitly reject the idea of gay marriage (!)–acting like first class jáçkáššëš. One would question how the hëll they expect to win hearts and minds but it’s becoming clear that this is not at all their intent. Makes for great negative ads though and you can bet that the next time this comes up for a vote you will see ads by the anti-gay forces that show angry screaming zealots attacking little old ladies and pulling fire alarms in church. Not to mention calls for the blacklisting of people who contributed money to the yes on 8 cause. Disastrous. If the election were held today prop 8 would probably pass by a larger margin.
the gay rights movement needs to grab back the spotlight from these parasites who are just using the issue for their own goals–which is not civil rights at all, just making the world safer for their rotten personalities. Gay marriage will pass when it becomes about good and decent people who love each other and just want to live their lives. The face of the next Proposition should be a loving gay couple with a mortgage and kids and the same joys and problems that any other couple has. The anti gay ads will feature hate filled faces tearing a paper cross from an elderly woman on camera.
(I’d love to think these idiots were actually doing some black ops display to make people think they were gay and thus make gays look bad but we’ve seen too much evidence of the fact that there are enough stupid people in the world that inventing them becomes unnecessary).
prop 8 is turning into the gift that keeps on taking. now we have radical “anarchist gay” groups–who, if one goes to their websites, explicitly reject the idea of gay marriage (!)–acting like first class jáçkáššëš. One would question how the hëll they expect to win hearts and minds but it’s becoming clear that this is not at all their intent. Makes for great negative ads though and you can bet that the next time this comes up for a vote you will see ads by the anti-gay forces that show angry screaming zealots attacking little old ladies and pulling fire alarms in church. Not to mention calls for the blacklisting of people who contributed money to the yes on 8 cause. Disastrous. If the election were held today prop 8 would probably pass by a larger margin.
the gay rights movement needs to grab back the spotlight from these parasites who are just using the issue for their own goals–which is not civil rights at all, just making the world safer for their rotten personalities. Gay marriage will pass when it becomes about good and decent people who love each other and just want to live their lives. The face of the next Proposition should be a loving gay couple with a mortgage and kids and the same joys and problems that any other couple has. The anti gay ads will feature hate filled faces tearing a paper cross from an elderly woman on camera.
(I’d love to think these idiots were actually doing some black ops display to make people think they were gay and thus make gays look bad but we’ve seen too much evidence of the fact that there are enough stupid people in the world that inventing them becomes unnecessary).
“Faith is irrational.”
No, faith is just fine and dandy.
Those two statements aren’t mutually exclusive, Jerry. “Irrational” does not automatically mean “bad” — it just means that reason doesn’t apply. We all have particular likes and dislikes that aren’t rational, and that’s fine — it’s putting those irrational ideas into policy that’s unjustifiable on any reasonable grounds.
And happy belated birthday!
“Faith is irrational.”
No, faith is just fine and dandy.
Those two statements aren’t mutually exclusive, Jerry. “Irrational” does not automatically mean “bad” — it just means that reason doesn’t apply. We all have particular likes and dislikes that aren’t rational, and that’s fine — it’s putting those irrational ideas into policy that’s unjustifiable on any reasonable grounds.
And happy belated birthday!
Faith is trust. It is therefore iconic, and therefore rational.
Everyone here saying faith is irrational is refusing to provide their rationale for saying so. Insistence — providing your need as proof — qualifies as a complete departure from reason and rationality in itself..
Faith is irrational.
Mike has faith.
Therefore, Mike is irrational.
Who has more faith than the person with no religion?
Happy 38th, Jerry. 🙂
1) Tim is right.. When we say that somebody justifies his religious beliefs on faith, what we mean is that he or she is not basing them on rational arguments. Philosophically I think it’s an excuse, because religion and god are not like art or love or other things that are not rationally justified. But on a different level I think it is better that people hold this attitude toward religion. It makes it easier for people to live together by making religion more personal. It’s much easier to deal with someone who says, “look, this is my personal belief, and I don’t need to justify it.” Than to deal with people who think they have a direct link to god, or who use weak rational arguments to justify and impose their beliefs (see intelligent design).
2) However, there are people who strut around their faithfulness as if it somehow makes them better than others. The kind who present the faithless (atheists) as untrustworthy and immoral. The same people extend faith into politics resulting in irrational politics.
3) On the other hand there are those who wear their supposed rationality as a badge of honor and look down on religious people in in fact people in general. These people are not nearly as rational as they think they are, but they don’t own up either to their own irrationality and irrational elements in the world that undermine their convictions.
4) “…however there are some aspects of it that are quite rational. Catholic Commandment 2, 3, 9 & 10 are either somewhat irrational, or are defended or applied by some people in an irrational manner. But Commandments 5, 6, & 7 are pretty rational. Unless of course, you defend them not by saying that they are moral, but by saying that God wants it that way, which is not the most rational argument one could employ.”
If you break it down, morality, both religious or secular, is not rational at its core. I thin that it is more rationally justified to care about the equality and happiness of homosexuals then to care about the attitude of an old religion toward homosexuals. But ultimately neither is completely rational. Their is no purely rational reason to care about the equality of homosexuals. We believe in equality.
4) re: anarchists. If there is a gene for extremism, cult mentality, rigid faith and narrow mindedness, it is found both in the left and the right. Anarchism is the lefty version for people who are too left wing to be members of an extreme messianic church.
“Their is no purely rational reason to care about the equality of homosexuals. We believe in equality.”
Couldn’t you argue that caring about equality is quite rational since anything less than tolerance for all lifestyles that do no harm ensures that you yourself will be free from oppression? Or, at the very least, would protect your friends and loved ones from such things. (One advantage to not being bigoted against gays is that you will not have to face the prospect of finding out that one of your kids or best friends is gay and you are part of the reason they are having to face difficulties). Which would seem a pretty rational way to look at it.
“Their is no purely rational reason to care about the equality of homosexuals. We believe in equality.”
Couldn’t you argue that caring about equality is quite rational since anything less than tolerance for all lifestyles that do no harm ensures that you yourself will be free from oppression? Or, at the very least, would protect your friends and loved ones from such things. (One advantage to not being bigoted against gays is that you will not have to face the prospect of finding out that one of your kids or best friends is gay and you are part of the reason they are having to face difficulties). Which would seem a pretty rational way to look at it.
Words are not the things they represent. Attributing words to the things they represent is also not based on rational arguments. If they were, parrots wouldn’t be able to speak without mastering their underlying reason.
But language is literally the medium of rationality. Why then the selective application of principle to language and not religion?
Faith is no less the foundation of language than of religion. When you claim to review the English I employ here, and then strawman me with gibberish that represents no human resolve, that is you arbitrarily sabotaging others’ faith in what I say without providing any reason the verbs I use aren’t valid for the nouns they’re attributed to. It’s the fatwa of the cyber-bully.
Words are not the things they represent. Attributing words to the things they represent is also not based on rational arguments. If they were, parrots wouldn’t be able to speak without mastering their underlying reason.
But language is literally the medium of rationality. Why then the selective application of principle to language and not religion?
Faith is no less the foundation of language than of religion. When you claim to review the English I employ here, and then strawman me with gibberish that represents no human resolve, that is you arbitrarily sabotaging others’ faith in what I say without providing any reason the verbs I use aren’t valid for the nouns they’re attributed to. It’s the fatwa of the cyber-bully.
“Couldn’t you argue that caring about equality is quite rational since anything less than tolerance for all lifestyles that do no harm ensures that you yourself will be free from oppression? Or, at the very least, would protect your friends and loved ones from such things. (One advantage to not being bigoted against gays is that you will not have to face the prospect of finding out that one of your kids or best friends is gay and you are part of the reason they are having to face difficulties). Which would seem a pretty rational way to look at it.”
It depends on what you mean when you say rational.
In everyday speech, Acting out of self interest is considered rational but acting out of altruistic reasons is considered beyond rational, while acting for the sake of God is of questioned rationality. Acting in the name of Alla and his prophet Muhammad is considered pretty irrational.
But in a more strict philosophical sense there is no rational basis to care for anything. So even if I said that I support equality for gays because I care about their well being, the well being of my loved ones, or my own well being, in none of the cases it would actually be rational, because why does my well being or the well being of others matter? There is no rational reason other than that I care about my well being (which not all people do anyway).
Moreover, when people make moral choices they don’t really go around calculating their own self interest. They do that too. But there are also other less calculated aspects that go into the equation.
When we try to convince people that gays deserve equal right of marriage we don’t really appeal to rationality but to empathy.
—————-
Mike, back in the good old days I had a lot of free time, as I was not writing a masters thesis in medieval history. That gave me the time and the pleasure of figuring out what you were trying to say. But now unfortunately I no longer have the time or the energy to really figure out what you are trying to say. 75% of the time I’m not really sure what you’re talking about, so I have no opinion for or against it. You might as well be speaking Yiddish. Oh well, we’ll always have poopy pants.
Thank you for failing to find any obvious flaws in what I’ve said in this thread.
Citing conventional wisdom as proof of rationality is unfaithful to reality.
Urgency is a foundation of emotions. Irrationality is also a foundation of emotions. Because of the obvious emotional component of acting in one’s self-interest, it’s probably more accurate to say that acting in our self-interest is a privileged irrationality.
Gezuntheit
Gezuntheit
Micha: If you break it down, morality, both religious or secular, is not rational at its core.
Luigi Novi: Secular morality can certainly be rational, if you understand the reason why it originated, and depending on the criteria by which it manifests itself. Morality is a system we created through intellectual assessment to codify fundamental, pre-moral drives that evolved within us to promote the survival of individuals, and the group, with larger and larger groups in mind (the self, the family, the tribe, the society, the state, the globe and biosphere) as we progressed intellectually as a species.
In Western, post-Enlightenment civilization, it seems to me that at least in theory, that it is a higher moral purpose to seek one’s survival, happiness and liberty in mind, and and not seek happiness and liberty when it leads to someone else’s unhappiness or loss of survival or liberty.
That seems fairly rational to me, since it serves a specific purpose that can be objectively measured: Maximizing survival, liberty and happiness, and minimizing the loss of those things. 🙂
It only seems irrational to those who eschew modern, post-Enlightenment principles of self-determination and liberty, and well, that’s a given. Under their system, the survival, liberty and happiness of more people is sacrificed for the survival, liberty and happiness of the few. This does not seem rational to me.
Micha: If you break it down, morality, both religious or secular, is not rational at its core.
Luigi Novi: Secular morality can certainly be rational, if you understand the reason why it originated, and depending on the criteria by which it manifests itself. Morality is a system we created through intellectual assessment to codify fundamental, pre-moral drives that evolved within us to promote the survival of individuals, and the group, with larger and larger groups in mind (the self, the family, the tribe, the society, the state, the globe and biosphere) as we progressed intellectually as a species.
In Western, post-Enlightenment civilization, it seems to me that at least in theory, that it is a higher moral purpose to seek one’s survival, happiness and liberty in mind, and and not seek happiness and liberty when it leads to someone else’s unhappiness or loss of survival or liberty.
That seems fairly rational to me, since it serves a specific purpose that can be objectively measured: Maximizing survival, liberty and happiness, and minimizing the loss of those things. 🙂
It only seems irrational to those who eschew modern, post-Enlightenment principles of self-determination and liberty, and well, that’s a given. Under their system, the survival, liberty and happiness of more people is sacrificed for the survival, liberty and happiness of the few. This does not seem rational to me.
Was he racist and mysogynist above or below the norm of his time?
He was pretty appalling. Read Notes on the State of Virginia some time. He has a (cough, cough) interesting section where he talks about the races, opining that Indians just need a little cultivation to become civilized, but that blacks are basically hopeless and inferior. He was greatly opposed to racial mixing, with the possible exception of Sally Hemings. Sally Hemings, by the way, was apparently his late wife’s half sister. The man had issues.
David, unfortunately, I’m not sure these opinions were far from the norm at the time. Wikipedia gives the impression that Jefferson was better than the norm because he was conflicted on slavery, and they provide a quote suggesting he changed his position on blacks. But I don’t know how reliable wikipedia is on this subject, and I haven’t studied any primay documents.
——————
Luigi, this is a complex issue. The first thing you have to realize is that I’m making a phylosophical point, not a political one. I’m not defending or opposing a political position on morality here.
Secondly, we are talking about rationallity in several senses here.
1) “Secular morality can certainly be rational, if you understand the reason why it originated, and depending on the criteria by which it manifests itself. Morality is a system we created through intellectual assessment to codify fundamental, pre-moral drives that evolved within us to promote the survival of individuals, and the group, with larger and larger groups in mind (the self, the family, the tribe, the society, the state, the globe and biosphere) as we progressed intellectually as a species.”
That’s the first sense. Which is looking at morality as a phenomenon, understanding it with rational tools — evolution, antropology, sociology etc., instead of as something divine.
2) “In Western, post-Enlightenment civilization, it seems to me that at least in theory, that it is a higher moral purpose to seek one’s survival, happiness and liberty in mind, and and not seek happiness and liberty when it leads to someone else’s unhappiness or loss of survival or liberty.
That seems fairly rational to me, since it serves a specific purpose that can be objectively measured: Maximizing survival, liberty and happiness, and minimizing the loss of those things. :-)”
Here there is a 2nd sense. You set a goal, survival, happiness, and then try to ratiopnally figure out what are the best ways to acheive these goals, instead of simply following traditional ways of doing things regardless of their effect on said goals.
3) The third sense is, like I said before, the one applied in everyday speech. Usually, we would say that one pursuing happiness is acting rationally, while one who is self distructive or pursing his own misery is irrational. (although we see that happening all the time).
4) “It only seems irrational to those who eschew modern, post-Enlightenment principles of self-determination and liberty, and well, that’s a given. Under their system, the survival, liberty and happiness of more people is sacrificed for the survival, liberty and happiness of the few. This does not seem rational to me.”
Even in the context of rational discussion, both on the philosophical and on the everyday political level, and even agreeing that happiness is the goal, people disagree about what is the more rational course of action or ethical system to pursue that goal. So the disagreement is not between rational and irrational, but about whose proposals are more rational.
But this is not the point I was making.
5) This brings us to the fifth philosophical narrower sense. This is the complicated part, because we now how to ask: are survival or happiness rational in the stricter sense? You see, here we hit a wall. You can tell me that, rationally speaking, doing something will increase or decrease survival or happiness. But if I ask, why does survival or happiness matter? This cannot be explained by appealing to rationality/reason (in the stricter sense) alone. The phrase, survival is good, is common sense, but it is not a necessary logical truth. It is not based on rationality but on something else.
This is an interesting philosophical point, but it’s only partially relevant to the political discussions were having. I do thing it is unwise to divide people into rational and irrational, and it is better to be aware that rationality is not that simple. Like I said, I don’t think religious beliefs or faith are justified on the strict philosophical sense, but I don’t think religious people are irrational, and that religion is devoid of rationality.
I do support life liberty and the pusuit of happiness, and I can rationally defend both my moral and political views on this, but only up to the philosophical wall I mentioned above. Here I can only say that life, liberty and happiness of people matter to me just as god matters to the religious.
I do think that it is more rational to base your morality on something inside the world of human experience (happiness of humans) then in something outside the world of human experience (god).But the basis of both systems is not in itself rational. And I think that the differences between religious and not religious on morality or not that different once we step away from the deep philosophical to more everyday life. We all care about people and we all use rationality in are arguments, although not always. Our disagreements are in that conrext.
Micha
Verifiability is irrelevant to rationality. If that were the case, no language could be rational. No word is interchangeable with the thing it represents.
Therefore, verifiability isn’t a reason to allow for the rationality of one set of moral standards, but not the other. Wrong doesn’t mean irrational.
Verifiability is irrelevant to rationality. If that were the case, no language could be rational. No word is interchangeable with the thing it represents.
Therefore, verifiability isn’t a reason to allow for the rationality of one set of moral standards, but not the other. Wrong doesn’t mean irrational.
Micha, I don’t see where I made a political point. The statement of yours I was responding to was regarding whether morality is rational at its core. My position is that it mostly certainly can be. I’m not sure which usage of the word you distinguish that precludes this.
Yes, people disagree about what is rational. But I already addressed that above. Often, the definition/usage that some people adhere to tends to be self-serving rather than one that both or all sides can agree upon as a matter of common language. Define what rationality is, or at least, agree upon an operational usage for the purpose of a discussion or debate, and it is certainly possible that it can describe morality. 🙂
Micha, I don’t see where I made a political point. The statement of yours I was responding to was regarding whether morality is rational at its core. My position is that it mostly certainly can be. I’m not sure which usage of the word you distinguish that precludes this.
Yes, people disagree about what is rational. But I already addressed that above. Often, the definition/usage that some people adhere to tends to be self-serving rather than one that both or all sides can agree upon as a matter of common language. Define what rationality is, or at least, agree upon an operational usage for the purpose of a discussion or debate, and it is certainly possible that it can describe morality. 🙂
“I’m not sure which usage of the word you distinguish that precludes this.”
The fourth. Look up David Hume on that.
The definition of rationality and the arguments about what course of action is rational are two seperate issues. One point I was making is that people might present rational arguments to support opposing positions. The other more philosophical point is that morality itself is not rational because good or happiness are not rational in the stricktest philosophical sense.
Here, I’ll try to illustrate both points.
Let’s look at two moral positions:
A: It is wrong to deny gays the happiness of marriage as it does not cause any harm that would justify denying them the good of marriage.
B: It is right to deny gays the good of marriage as it is harmful for society.
Both positions are structured in a rational manner. Both are interested in minimizing harm and maximizing happiness. And both present rational cause and effect arguments on why a certain course of action would increase happiness or harm.
The reason you and I reject the 2nd argument is not because it is structured irrationaly, but because we don’t agree with it’s assumption that gay marriage causes harm to society. However if the assumption was true we would consider B a rational argument.
However, we suspect that this assumption is in fact a rationalization hiding behind it the real irrational reason C: that some people are unhappy with the idea of homosexuality.
This is why we consider argument B to be irrational. and I think we’re both an agreement about that.
But note the philosophical point.
The basic components of arguments A, B, C are happiness and harm. But happiness and harm are not objective or logical. They are subjective states of mind.
In order for there to even be a conversation between position A and B, we must agree that happiness is good and harm is bad. But this is one thing we can’t prove using rational arguments. This is something we just accept as a result of our shared humanity.
We also cannot give a rational argument why the happiness or unhappiness of others — in this case gays or society — should matter. We simply believe that it does because of our shared humanity.
Which is also the third point I made to Bill. Ultimately our appeal on behalf of gays is not based on rationality but on empathy.
The same is true about other moral questions. We don’t murder other people not because somebody presented us with a logical argument about mudering, we do it because we care about life. a sociopath might understand logic, but he doesn’t understand that. We treat blacks as equals not because somebody constructed a rational argument about equality, but because blacks spoke up and appealed to our shared humanity — our emotional wish to be treated as equals by others.
I think we need a Federal law allowing Gay marriage.
State’s Rights is just an argument for ignoring Federal law, which could lead to laws in a few states creating equal-but-separate drinking fountains for Gays and straights.
I think we need a Federal law allowing Gay marriage.
State’s Rights is just an argument for ignoring Federal law, which could lead to laws in a few states creating equal-but-separate drinking fountains for Gays and straights.
I think we need a Federal law allowing Gay marriage.
Don’t think that will happen. When they voted for the Defense of Marriage Act it passed with margins usually reserved for “Resolved: Mothers Are Good”. The ones who aren’t in favor of gay marriage still aren’t in favor of it and most of the others are too chickenshit to do anything about it…just hope that the Supreme Court takes it out of their hands.
I think we need a Federal law allowing Gay marriage.
Don’t think that will happen. When they voted for the Defense of Marriage Act it passed with margins usually reserved for “Resolved: Mothers Are Good”. The ones who aren’t in favor of gay marriage still aren’t in favor of it and most of the others are too chickenshit to do anything about it…just hope that the Supreme Court takes it out of their hands.
I think we need a Federal law allowing Gay marriage.
State’s Rights is just an argument for ignoring Federal law, which could lead to laws in a few states creating equal-but-separate drinking fountains for Gays and straights.
I don’t think a Federal law ordaining gay marriage would be legal. Certainly Congress could decree that the Federal government would recognize gay marriage for Federal purposes (tax, etc.) but I don’t think a Federal mandate to the States proclaiming gay marriage legal would get very far.
And no, “States’ rights” is not just a code for discrimination. Granted, the doctrine was abused during First and Second Reconstruction, but there is more to it than that. Like it or not, the United States does have a federal system. States do, in fact, have prerogatives. The Federal government is supposed to be one of limited jurisdiction, and about once a decade the Supreme Court actually enforces that theory. In a sense you’re right that it’s an argument for ignoring Federal law: it’s an argument that a Federal law governing a state-level issue is invalid. On the other hand, it’s an argument in favor of applying the ultimate Federal law, since the plain text of the US Constitution establishes that as a valid line of argument. The whole premise of the US system is that some decisions are left in the hands of the States, and others are placed in the purview of the United States as a whole. Civil rights have become an increasingly Federalized issue, but domestic relations have always been a quintessential state issue. Saying that it’s still a state issue is not even remotely a dumb argument. And it’s not always the case that the Federal government is the repository of all that’s just and true and wise in American governance, unless you have a higher opinion of the period 2002-2006 than I suspect you do. Or possibly a longer period– remember that DOMA is itself a Federal law, and that the Feds have reserved the right to prosecute medicinal marijuana, state law notwithstanding.
The drinking fountains claim is a bit over the top though, don’t you think? I’ve yet to see any significant number of people in any jurisdiction trying to institute sexual-orientation-based apartheid, and the insignificant numbers are too busy protesting funerals to get up to much mischief. We can agree that gay marriage bans are bad things, but saying they’re the first step on the road to sexual-orientation Jim Crow is not an argument I take seriously. Basically they either roll the clock back six months (California) or not at all (Arizona), and in neither case do I recall a tyranny being in effect earlier this year.