Random Thread

[Richard W]

Do you want to promote goodness in any rationally justifiable sense, or do you want society to be strengthened through conformity with tradition? Because if you only want socially recognized morality, then I don't understand what purpose this social conformity is supposed to serve. Suppose I were to institute a system of fines to be levied if people refuse to attend my immorality lectures. Why would this proposal be worse than yours given the arbitrariness of the moral codes to be preached?

It may well fit in the scheme. The issues would be with efficacy.

[Travis B.]

Do you want to promote goodness in any rationally justifiable sense, or do you want society to be strengthened through conformity with tradition? Because if you only want socially recognized morality, then I don't understand what purpose this social conformity is supposed to serve. Suppose I were to institute a system of fines to be levied if people refuse to attend my immorality lectures. Why would this proposal be worse than yours given the arbitrariness of the moral codes to be preached?

It may well fit in the scheme. The issues would be with efficacy.

One thing to remember is that some of the least religious countries in the world, aside from (formerly) Communist ones, are ones with state religions, while the US, which emphatically lacks a state religion, is actually far more religious than them. Attempting to promote a particular state religion this way may actually have the effect of promoting irreligion.

[Ares Land]

Yes, I very much like this idea. Judaism doesn’t really emphasise the idea of ‘God’s love’ quite so much, but the (Orthodox) Jewish heaven is typically thought of as a place where scholars can study with the greatest teachers for all eternity, and that’s going to be pretty unpleasant if you don’t like that sort of thing…

Heh. Now that's a pretty appealing kind of afterlife, actually.

If you don’t mind answering, what is Calvinism? I’ve heard of it, of course, but being Jewish I have little idea about the ins and outs of Christian belief.

Honestly, I'm not much of an authority myself. Calvinism is a Protestant denomination that branched off early on from the Lutherans.
The Baptist and Evangelicals are later offshoots from the main branch, but there's been a good bit of cross-pollination.
In North American their intellectual descendants are the Presbyterans; in Europe Reformed Churches.

(Anyone with an actual understanding of the various Protestant denominations is more than welcome to correct me.)

There are varying differences in doctrine that I don't really feel up to explaining, but the parts I find nasty are:

• Total depravation: the idea that anything we unsaved do or think is irrevocably tainted with sin.
• Predestination: the idea the God has chosen in advance who gets saved or not; God decided if you got to heaven or hell before you're even born.

That's, um, pretty dour.
I don't really know if, say, modern Presbyterians have mellowed out somewhat.

wrt to the discussion at hand, I don't know how that works with morality. If you're doomed and everything you do is evil anyway, why bother with the rules at all?

(Again, if anyone here actually understands Calvinism, corrections would be more than welcome.)

[Raphael]

I've got a weird kind of mixed feelings about Calvinism, in the sense that I have a very low opinion of Calvinist theology, but at the same time, parts of me are kind of drawn to a kind of "secular Calvinism", as in, the idea that some people are born as assholes, live as assholes, and will die as assholes.

[Travis B.]

I too have a low opinion of Calvinism - the idea that we are divided arbitrarily into saved and unsaved, and nothing we do during our lives here on Earth will change that - also, the idea that all humans are totally depraved, i.e. all humans are basically evil in what they do in this live with no distinction being made between people - and that there are people who have lived good lives purely of their own account and without expecting any reward that will go to hell while there are people who have lived decidedly evil lives who will be going to heaven despite anything they have done.

I also wonder how one advocates for any sort of religion-based morality with this sort of mindset, since if one is either going to heaven or to hell based purely upon the whims of God before you were even born, what is the point of any God-fearing sort of morality in the first place - unless one advocates a secular morality, where then why even bother with religion then, if no matter what one does here on Earth matters in the afterlife? One might as well be an atheist then.

[Raphael]

Public Service Announcement: I have no desire to go back to being a regular moderator, but if there should be another temporary situation in which additional moderating power is needed - let's say because some troll managed to join the Board and posted hundreds of troll posts before being banned, or because a really long thread is supposed to be split - I'd volunteer to be made a moderator temporarily for that particular project.

[Travis B.]

Based on what Raphael posted accidentally in the Venting Thread, why not move this to a religion thread?

[dɮ the phoneme]

I posted this elsewhere already, so some of you might have seen it, but it didn't gain much traction. I figured the audience here may be more receptive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hGhva_N2S8

[bradrn]

Yes, I very much like this idea. Judaism doesn’t really emphasise the idea of ‘God’s love’ quite so much, but the (Orthodox) Jewish heaven is typically thought of as a place where scholars can study with the greatest teachers for all eternity, and that’s going to be pretty unpleasant if you don’t like that sort of thing…

Heh. Now that's a pretty appealing kind of afterlife, actually.

Yep, I agree!

(I should note here that Judaism is extremely vague about its afterlife. There’s broad agreement that one exists, in that a just God must give some reward for good deeds, but beyond that no-one seems to agree much. A quick search on https://www.chabad.org, for instance, turned up at least two contradictory articles. The afterlife I mentioned above is just one of many conceptions in Jewish thought.)

If you don’t mind answering, what is Calvinism? I’ve heard of it, of course, but being Jewish I have little idea about the ins and outs of Christian belief.

Honestly, I'm not much of an authority myself. Calvinism is a Protestant denomination that branched off early on from the Lutherans.
The Baptist and Evangelicals are later offshoots from the main branch, but there's been a good bit of cross-pollination.
In North American their intellectual descendants are the Presbyterans; in Europe Reformed Churches.

(Anyone with an actual understanding of the various Protestant denominations is more than welcome to correct me.)

There are varying differences in doctrine that I don't really feel up to explaining, but the parts I find nasty are:

• Total depravation: the idea that anything we unsaved do or think is irrevocably tainted with sin.
• Predestination: the idea the God has chosen in advance who gets saved or not; God decided if you got to heaven or hell before you're even born.

That's, um, pretty dour.
I don't really know if, say, modern Presbyterians have mellowed out somewhat.

wrt to the discussion at hand, I don't know how that works with morality. If you're doomed and everything you do is evil anyway, why bother with the rules at all?

(Again, if anyone here actually understands Calvinism, corrections would be more than welcome.)

Right. I don’t think this is something I could agree with. But if there are any Calvinists here, I’d be interested in hearing their thoughts.

[zompist]

Calvinists use the term TULIP to summarize their doctrine:

Total Depravity - their version of original sin; humans are too lost in sin to save themselves
Unconditional Election - God chooses who to show mercy to, not based on any action or characteristics of the person
Limited Atonement - only the saved have their sin erased by Christ
Irresistible Grace - salvation is God's work and not due to the merit of the believer
Perseverance of the Saints - salvation can't be lost

If you're curious, this series by a Calvinist seeks to explain each of these.

Beliefs usually arise in opposition with other beliefs. This Wikipedia article gives a summary of this age-old debate. My understanding is that Calvinism appeals to those who disapprove of any limitation on God's power-- they see it as limiting God if a human can freely choose to accept or reject him. The opposing Arminian view is that salvation is entirely dependent on God's work, but can be rejected if a human really wants to. The even more opposing Pelagian view denies original sin entirely.

[bradrn]

Calvinists use the term TULIP to summarize their doctrine: … If you're curious, this series by a Calvinist seeks to explain each of these.

Beliefs usually arise in opposition with other beliefs. This Wikipedia article gives a summary of this age-old debate. My understanding is that Calvinism appeals to those who disapprove of any limitation on God's power-- they see it as limiting God if a human can freely choose to accept or reject him.

Thank you for giving the opposite view. I still can’t say I agree with Calvinism at all, but at least it seems like a fairly understandable position now, and a logical extension of some reasonable assumptions.

It’s particularly interesting for me to compare this to Judaism, which is quite different to Calvinism in very many ways. For one thing, I’ve never heard a Jew talking about ‘choosing to accept’ God — it’s simply not an important part in the whole process. From what I’ve heard, a non-Jew can go to heaven if they’re a good person, even if they don’t believe in God. And it’s entirely possible for a Jew to believe all the right things and yet be a terrible person, in which case… well, I’m not actually sure if Judaism even has a hell, but they’re certainly not going direct to heaven. (Or, putting it in a Christian phraseology, Judaism requires good works but not faith.) And a fundamental tenet of Judaism is free will, which means that it is someone’s own choice whether they are a good person or not; and because God is all-just and all-merciful, people get their deserts. That is, your choices determine whether you end up in heaven.

[rotting bones]

It's possible for Xunzi to have been right about the need and effectiveness for moral instruction and for moral instruction in school and church to produce no discernible effect - one way to harmonize the two positions is to say that it just can't be industrialized - there's no reliable, standardizable procedure for the production or vetting of moral instructors the way there is for math teachers. If you want to be Weberian about it, it can't make the transition from charismatic to bureaucratic authority.

This seems like the correct position to me.

I agree this is a thing people keep saying. My problem is that I see no reason to think so.

It may well fit in the scheme. The issues would be with efficacy.

Efficacy of what, exactly? Suppose I make it mandatory to play the dating sim Senren Banka, which is like an encyclopedia of plausibly deniable innuendos. What would fail in your opinion?

(Or, putting it in a Christian phraseology, Judaism requires good works but not faith.)

I don't think that's what Judaism says. I'm pretty sure Judaism says that you are rewarded solely for your works, but your works are dictated entirely by God. When you feel the urge to do good deeds/keep the commandments, that is a gift to you from God.

(Disclaimer: A lot of my understanding of Judaism comes from Yitzchak Breitowitz. Not exactly a modern teacher.)

In Islam, it is not enough to do good works. Only those who do good deeds out of a pure love for God will reach the gardens closer to the divine presence, as symbolized by the tree, the pen and the veil of light.* According to Islam, you don't have to follow Muhammad's revelation to believe in God or even be a Muslim, i.e. submit to God. God created mankind with an innate disposition to believe in Him. Humans deliberately obscure this disposition with sophistic reasoning out of stubborn pride. They do this because denying God makes it easier to exercise oppressive might on earth. (So Muslims claim, though there is no reason to think that's true.)

I've heard Islamic scholars argue that if an atheist simply doesn't see why others believe in God, then that is a malfunction in his innate disposition, and God will judge him solely on his works. However, if an atheist hates God or the idea that someone else might have legitimate authority over him, then God will punish him for his arrogance. What is sinful is not the disbelief. Belief is simply natural. What is sinful is the arrogance that goes out of its way to deny natural belief.

*Apparently, above the highest gardens of paradise, there is a veil (hijab) made of light. Now, whether Allah actually "wears" this hijab is beyond human understanding. I think the popular understanding was that Allah does wear a veil of light. My understanding is that the hijab was a common article of dress among the nobility in Pre-Islamic Arabia. It was traditionally associated with wealth and power, not with oppressed women and Third World poverty like it is in the 21st century West. Also, it says in the Talmud that Yahweh's body is covered in phylacteries.

The pen is obviously the one that writes the tablet of fate. You can hear the scratching if you approach the throne.

There is also a tree above the highest gardens of paradise and below the throne. I don't remember much about it.

[Ares Land]

IIRC, bradrn's an observant Jew. I think we can trust him on that subject

I learned a fair bit about Judaism, and it does seem low on faith requirements, and very insistent on keeping the commandments. The commandment to 'turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul' seems to disqualify atheists, but who knows?

I definitely got the impression that Judaism is extremely big on free will. (Good teachers are able to explain how to reconcile this with God's omnipotence and omniscience, but I can't follow their reasoning: it makes my brain hurt.)

From what I know of Islam (not that much, admittedly) it seems almost Calvinist in its insistance that God ultimately decides how He wants and that His decisions are in no way supposed to make sense to us.
(I heard Muslim scholars says that even saying who's a good Muslim or not is a sin. You can guess how widely practiced that is.)

[rotting bones]

IIRC, bradrn's an observant Jew. I think we can trust him on that subject

I learned a fair bit about Judaism, and it does seem low on faith requirements, and very insistent on keeping the commandments. The commandment to 'turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul' seems to disqualify atheists, but who knows?

I definitely got the impression that Judaism is extremely big on free will. (Good teachers are able to explain how to reconcile this with God's omnipotence and omniscience, but I can't follow their reasoning: it makes my brain hurt.)

From what I know of Islam (not that much, admittedly) it seems almost Calvinist in its insistance that God ultimately decides how He pleases that His decisions are in no way supposed to make sense to us.

Regarding Judaism: All the ideas I posted are based on primary and secondary sources, Torah, Talmud, Maimonides and random rabbis on the internet. I don't have every source ready to hand, but I'd be interested if bradrn can support his position from the authorities, whether textual sources or his rabbi.

Regarding Islam: It is true that Allah saves whom it pleases Him to save, but where do you get the idea that his actions need not make sense? In the worst case, they may be based on wisdom we don't have access to.

[Ares Land]

Regarding Judaism: All the ideas I posted are based on primary and secondary sources, Torah, Talmud, Maimonides and random rabbis on the internet. I don't have every source ready to hand, but I'd be interested if bradrn can support his position from the authorities, whether textual sources or his rabbi.

This seems a good summary here:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-ess ... ood-deeds/

Traditional Judaism is not a religion in an orthodox sense of a faith commitment but in an orthoprax sense of a way of life of the Jewish people. In traditional Judaism, by contrast to Christianity, the debate faith or good deeds expresses itself exactly the opposite in which both sides are in agreement that good deeds are a necessary component of a religious life reflecting the orthoprax nature of Judaism, and the dispute is to what extent, if at all, faith is a necessary element.

It doesn't quite mean that faith is unimportant, but it's a very different attitude than the Christian position:

As far as I am aware, no such extreme orthoprax position according to which the essence of religion is fulfilled through proper behavior, even without a proper faith commitment or belief in God, exists in classical Christianity. No such position is possible within Christianity because the very essence of Christianity is a faith commitment – faith in God and in Jesus as the savior.

Regarding Islam: It is true that Allah saves whom it pleases Him to save, but where do you get the idea that his actions need not make sense? In the worst case, they may be based on wisdom we don't have access to.

Oh, sorry, that was poorly said of me.
Your phrasing is a lot better!

[rotting bones]

Regarding Judaism: All the ideas I posted are based on primary and secondary sources, Torah, Talmud, Maimonides and random rabbis on the internet. I don't have every source ready to hand, but I'd be interested if bradrn can support his position from the authorities, whether textual sources or his rabbi.

This seems a good summary here:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-ess ... ood-deeds/

Traditional Judaism is not a religion in an orthodox sense of a faith commitment but in an orthoprax sense of a way of life of the Jewish people. In traditional Judaism, by contrast to Christianity, the debate faith or good deeds expresses itself exactly the opposite in which both sides are in agreement that good deeds are a necessary component of a religious life reflecting the orthoprax nature of Judaism, and the dispute is to what extent, if at all, faith is a necessary element.

It doesn't quite mean that faith is unimportant, but it's a very different attitude than the Christian position:

As far as I am aware, no such extreme orthoprax position according to which the essence of religion is fulfilled through proper behavior, even without a proper faith commitment or belief in God, exists in classical Christianity. No such position is possible within Christianity because the very essence of Christianity is a faith commitment – faith in God and in Jesus as the savior.

"Orthoprax" is a new word for me. I'm familiar with "orthopraxy". Traditionally, Islam was an orthopraxy too. There were no systematic inquisitions over specific beliefs like in orthodoxies. What mattered were the rituals, and those included the shahada.

Regarding Islam: It is true that Allah saves whom it pleases Him to save, but where do you get the idea that his actions need not make sense? In the worst case, they may be based on wisdom we don't have access to.

Oh, sorry, that was poorly said of me.
Your phrasing is a lot better!

My understanding is that all Abrahamic religions agree there is some wisdom which God hasn't shared with humanity. In my experience, Islam doesn't stress the incomprehensibility of God. Traditionally, Islam considers belief in God to be common sense and requires the believer to seek wisdom (ilm). God is the source of all wisdom, and he's said to be a hakim, a learned person, judge or physician. He wraps himself in light, sits on a tree and writes all day.

[rotting bones]

Innate disposition is called fitra: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitra

[Ares Land]

"Orthoprax" is a new word for me. I'm familiar with "orthopraxy". Traditionally, Islam was an orthopraxy too. There were no systematic inquisitions over specific beliefs like in orthodoxies. What mattered were the rituals, and those included the shahada.

For me too! I never read or heard it before.

I think maybe a Western bias makes us label other religions as "weird", with a fancy Greek name. But I think we in the West are the weird ones. Does anyone in the world ever insists that people think correct thoughts, outside of Christians and far-left activists?


(Inasmuch as Christians really do that. Most church-goers I know focus on doing the right thing and seem uninterested in doctrine. I've met a few Catholics who'll insist that the Orthodox are blasphemous or something, but I never really understood their take on Catholicism. Their main article of faith was complaining about the Pope, which seems a very un-Catholic thing to do.)

[rotting bones]

For me too! I never read or heard it before.

I think maybe a Western bias makes us label other religions as "weird", with a fancy Greek name. But I think we in the West are the weird ones. Does anyone in the world ever insists that people think correct thoughts, outside of Christians and far-left activists?


(Inasmuch as Christians really do that. Most church-goers I know focus on doing the right thing and seem uninterested in doctrine. I've met a few Catholics who'll insist that the Orthodox are blasphemous or something, but I never really understood their take on Catholicism. Their main article of faith was complaining about the Pope, which seems a very un-Catholic thing to do.)

Regarding Judaism: Does your article say that the desire to do deeds is not decreed by God?

Regarding orthopraxy: Slavoj Zizek thinks humans have a fitra to follow rituals, and the problem with the traditional left is that it tried to follow the orthodoxies that preceded them. When we encounter traumatic experiences, what we should do instead of heading inquisitions or falling back into orthopraxy is to come up with new rituals on the spot.

[Ares Land]

Regarding Judaism: Does your article say that the desire to do deeds is not decreed by God?

It is decreed by God, but I think that doesn't preclude free will. (that's honestly the bits I don't understand)

Regarding orthopraxy: Slavoj Zizek thinks humans have a fitra to follow rituals, and the problem with the traditional left is that it tried to follow the orthodoxies that preceded them. When we encounter traumatic experiences, what we should do instead of heading inquisitions or falling back into orthopraxy is to come up with new rituals on the spot.

I haven't read Zizek. But I agree with you that ritual has a certain healing power.