[quote]Sifu wrote:
You have to understand something about the British, they don’t have the same view on freedom of speech as we have here. To be critical of Islam is to risk jail.
There was a TV newscrew who did an undercover investigation of a mosque who were interogated by the police afterwards because they aired speeches by the Imam where he came out with some really predjudicial views. The problem the police had was not with the Imam inciting hatred instead their problem was with the newscrew informing people of what he was saying.[/quote]
That’s incorrect: the police (wrongfully) launched an investigation for distorting, referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and reported Channel 4 to the media watchdog OfCom. Needless to say, they lost bitterly, the case was shot down and OfCom didn’t act either. The police had to apologise, promised GBP100.000 and faces a libel case by Channel 4. Free speech prevailed due to due process.
[quote]All across Europe governments are working to create a climate of fear and intimidation when it comes to people saying what is on their mind.
If we were living in Europe and this forum was a European one. Many of us on this board could be facing criminal charges for some of our views. Especially you PRCalDude.[/quote]
I think this claim should be supported by some form of evidence. I read many of PRCalDude’s posts and as much as I don’t agree with them, I haven’t seen any who would have brought up any criminal charges.
That’s incorrect as well: just last year a foaming at the mouth christian pressure group tried to use the blasphemy paragraph to censor the BBC for showing Jerry Springer - the Opera. Needless to say, they lost.
The last successful prosecution for blasphemy was by the way reached by one foaming at the mouth conservative pressure group (see a pattern there?) in 1977 against the Gay Times.
Well, he’s not in office anymore and he hasn’t done so.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Sifu wrote:
You have to understand something about the British, they don’t have the same view on freedom of speech as we have here. To be critical of Islam is to risk jail.
There was a TV newscrew who did an undercover investigation of a mosque who were interogated by the police afterwards because they aired speeches by the Imam where he came out with some really predjudicial views. The problem the police had was not with the Imam inciting hatred instead their problem was with the newscrew informing people of what he was saying.
That’s incorrect: the police (wrongfully) launched …
[quote]makkun wrote:
Sifu wrote:
You have to understand something about the British, they don’t have the same view on freedom of speech as we have here. To be critical of Islam is to risk jail.
There was a TV newscrew who did an undercover investigation of a mosque who were interogated by the police afterwards because they aired speeches by the Imam where he came out with some really predjudicial views. The problem the police had was not with the Imam inciting hatred instead their problem was with the newscrew informing people of what he was saying.
That’s incorrect: the police (wrongfully) launched an investigation for distorting, referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and reported Channel 4 to the media watchdog OfCom. Needless to say, they lost bitterly, the case was shot down and OfCom didn’t act either. The police had to apologise, promised GBP100.000 and faces a libel case by Channel 4. Free speech prevailed due to due process.
All across Europe governments are working to create a climate of fear and intimidation when it comes to people saying what is on their mind.
If we were living in Europe and this forum was a European one. Many of us on this board could be facing criminal charges for some of our views. Especially you PRCalDude.
I think this claim should be supported by some form of evidence. I read many of PRCalDude’s posts and as much as I don’t agree with them, I haven’t seen any who would have brought up any criminal charges.
Right before the London bombings the liberal party voted to reinstate the 16th century blasphemy law. They were going to use it to give Islam a special protected status. They were going to make it illegal for non-muslims to quote passages from the Koran that are predjudicial. They were going to classify it as inciting hatred. After the bombing they decided not to go ahead but they almost did it.
That’s incorrect as well: just last year a foaming at the mouth christian pressure group tried to use the blasphemy paragraph to censor the BBC for showing Jerry Springer - the Opera. Needless to say, they lost.
The last successful prosecution for blasphemy was by the way reached by one foaming at the mouth conservative pressure group (see a pattern there?) in 1977 against the Gay Times.
Tony Bliar during prime ministers questions was asked if he supported making holocaust denial illegal like it is in several European countries and he said yes he did. This is the kind of dictatorial mentality they have over there.
Well, he’s not in office anymore and he hasn’t done so.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
“the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim”[/quote]
This is the dialectical beginning, of course, of a study of the good, which takes its beginnings from common opinion or prior philosophical argument.
I think one thing we gather from the discussion is that it does not make sense to speak of a monolithic “Good” as per Platonic idealism, at least when we are discussing ethics. That is, such an inquiry is fit for a different kind of philosophy.
You and PRCalDude are having an interesting conversation, but I would like to point out another possibility, which the Philosophers also contemplated: secular ethical systems are not designed for hoi polloi.
Rather, religion (rightly used) provides the ethical framework through which ordinary people learn behavior based on an absolute authority. Philosophy - which admits from the outset to being provisional - does not provide certainty, and ethics are, for the scholar or philosopher, a matter of faith contingent upon rational considerations about how to live well together.
It is a mistake, I believe, to think that Philosophy can replace religion in its most critical role.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
“the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim”
This is the dialectical beginning, of course, of a study of the good, which takes its beginnings from common opinion or prior philosophical argument.
[/quote]
i quoted the first line of the nicomachean ethics just to see if anyone would respond. i was hoping that PRcaldude might impress me with his knowledge of aristotle, but i was disappointed. you though, as always, did not disappoint.
aristotle of course provides a much finer differentiation between those things which are good and what good is itself.
i would not say this too loudly around here, it is quite the elitist position. the hoi polloi will have none of that now…
on a more serious note, while this might be a more practical solution to the ethical woes of humanity (perhaps THE solution), it only suggests that “the many” are incapable of acting rationally on their own.
For a simple example, one should not need an absolute authority to tell them not to kill. they should be capable of the simple lines of reasoning that would persuade a rational person that killing was wrong (in most cases).
the christians themselves generally engage in this sort of reasoning anyway. for example, when a non-christian pushes the christian for a reason why they should not have sex before marrage, the christian doesn’t respond “because God said so”.
Instead, they give reasons. they say, “pre-material sex is bad because…”. In fact, in defense of their biblical code of ethics, christians often cite non-biblical reasons.
but anyway, i’m diverging to much.
[quote]
It is a mistake, I believe, to think that Philosophy can replace religion in its most critical role.[/quote]
what do you think religions “most critical” role is? my feeling is that your answer to this is quite different then PRcaldude’s answer.
i would agree that of course there are some social and personal roles that religion plays that rational discourse cannot replace (lets not limit this to philosophy, for after all all we really mean by that term anymore is as much). providing a foundation for ethics, is not one of them.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Do you live in Britain, stokedporcupine?
No. from what i hear, i doubt i’d want to live there. i never said that i thought the current ethical state of either Britain or America was very good.
In fact, i think there are many things wrong with what seems to be the current outlook and world view of your average American (and i assume, Britain). though i’m sure my list of ethical concerns wouldn’t match yours perfectly, i’m sure it overlaps quite a bit.
this does not mean though that i think a “return to God” is the answer. [/quote]
Don’t you think it is a bit unfair to call Bishop Ali ignorant for commenting about a country which you don’t live in and don’t know what is going on there?
Two major trends that are going on in Britain are a real threat to the way of life there. People are becoming less religious and leaving the Christian church while a foreign and hostile new religion is rising in numbers and being supported by the governmnet.
There a people abandoning the Christian church and becoming muslims, meanwhile if Christians try to get muslims to convert to Christianity they are threatend with hate crime charges.
Already in Britain mohammad is the first or second most popular name for newborn boys. 25% of newborn babies are born to immigrant mothers. If people don’t want to end up in a fucked up sharia state they need to do something to reverse the trend. I can guarantee you that Atheists won’t do well under sharia. Christians might be able to pay jizya tax but atheists will have their heads chopped off.
Sure many of the ideas that Jesus espoused could be found elsewhere but Christianity was the vehicle through which they found widespread acceptance in Europe.
The problem that Christianity is facing today is the result of the Romans makeing it their state religion in the third century. The Romans were the ones who instituted the rigid Orthodoxy that turns people off.
This is the major flaw in yours and others analysis of Christianity. You are only looking at the Roman instituted Orthodoxy. It was Jewish Orthodoxy that nailed Jesus to a cross for heresy. But it was Roman Orthodoxy that resulted in all the sins that are blamed upon Christianity.
The reason why the Paracies felt so threatened by Jesus that they got the state of Rome to crucify him is because Jesus worked through a philosophy of attraction. Jesus didn’t demand that everyone be super devout and perfect unlike the Pharacies.
The parable from Luke of the Taxman and the Pharacie is a perfect example of this. That’s why people followed Jesus into the temple. Orthodoxy is why people are leaving.
Before the institution of Roman Orthodoxy there was room for free thought and disbelief in Christianity. The Gospel of Thomas aka “The doubting Thomas” was an example of that. Thomas doubted Jesus the divinity of Jesus. Thomas also doubted the resurrection was a resurrection, which makes sense when you consider that crucifixion was meant to be a slow drawn out death unlike being run through with a sword.
Here is the parable from Luke:
The Pharisee and the Publican
9And He also told this parable to some people who (L)trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and (M)viewed others with contempt:
10"Two men (N)went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
11"The Pharisee (O)stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.
12’I (P)fast twice a week; I (Q)pay tithes of all that I get.’
13"But the tax collector, (R)standing some distance away, (S)was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but (T)was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’
14"I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; (U)for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
15(V)And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them.
16But Jesus called for them, saying, "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
17"Truly I say to you, (W)whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."
[quote]makkun wrote:
Sifu wrote:
You have to understand something about the British, they don’t have the same view on freedom of speech as we have here. To be critical of Islam is to risk jail.
There was a TV newscrew who did an undercover investigation of a mosque who were interogated by the police afterwards because they aired speeches by the Imam where he came out with some really predjudicial views. The problem the police had was not with the Imam inciting hatred instead their problem was with the newscrew informing people of what he was saying.
That’s incorrect: the police (wrongfully) launched an investigation for distorting, referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and reported Channel 4 to the media watchdog OfCom. Needless to say, they lost bitterly, the case was shot down and OfCom didn’t act either.
Yes Channel 4 did prevail however the police were able to put a message out to everyone which was this: If you do not have the wealth neccessary to resist an assault by the state you better shut the fuck up. Channel 4 is a corporation with plenty of lawyers to defend it. The common man does not have such protection.
In America with our 1st amendment protection of free speech the police would not attempt such a prosecution. Which is not to say that the mosque might not have been able to try and bring a civil lawsuit, but even there they would have had an uphill battle.
There is a different mentality over here when it comes to freedom of speech. Yes there are some facists like president Bush with his free speech zones but they don’t get much traction.
[quote]
All across Europe governments are working to create a climate of fear and intimidation when it comes to people saying what is on their mind.
If we were living in Europe and this forum was a European one. Many of us on this board could be facing criminal charges for some of our views. Especially you PRCalDude.
I think this claim should be supported by some form of evidence. I read many of PRCalDude’s posts and as much as I don’t agree with them, I haven’t seen any who would have brought up any criminal charges. [/quote]
The novelist Ian McEwan has launched an astonishingly strong attack on Islamism, saying that he “despises” it and accusing it of “wanting to create a society that I detest”. His words, in an interview with an Italian newspaper, could, in today’s febrile legalistic climate, lay him open to being investigated for a “hate crime”.
In an interview with Guido Santevecchi, a London correspondent for Corriere della Sera, the Booker-winning novelist said he rarely grants interviews on controversial issues “because I have to be careful to protect my privacy”.
But he said that he was glad to leap to the defence of his old friend Martin Amis when the latter’s attacks on Muslims brought down charges of racism on his head. He made an exception of the Islamic issue out of friendship to Amis, and because he shares the latter’s strong opinions.
Mr McEwan made his comments to Guido Santevecchi, a London correspondent for Corriere della Sera, and it is even possible he could now be investigated by police for a hate crime.
[quote]
Right before the London bombings the liberal party voted to reinstate the 16th century blasphemy law. They were going to use it to give Islam a special protected status.
They were going to make it illegal for non-muslims to quote passages from the Koran that are predjudicial. They were going to classify it as inciting hatred. After the bombing they decided not to go ahead but they almost did it.
That’s incorrect as well: just last year a foaming at the mouth christian pressure group tried to use the blasphemy paragraph to censor the BBC for showing Jerry Springer - the Opera. Needless to say, they lost.
The last successful prosecution for blasphemy was by the way reached by one foaming at the mouth conservative pressure group (see a pattern there?) in 1977 against the Gay Times. BBC ON THIS DAY | 11 | 1977: Gay paper guilty of blasphemy [/quote]
The New Blasphemy
Britain Debates The Limits Of Religious Free Speech.
Omar Marzouk, a Muslim comedian from Denmark, had but one request at last month’s Edinburgh Fringe Festival. “Tell me if you don’t find my jokes funny,” he told his audience. “I don’t want to die–I’m not that kind of Muslim.”
Poking fun at the world’s religions was de rigueur at Edinburgh’s annual stage jamboree. Reason: fears that a controversial new “anti-blasphemy” law could curtail freedom of speech. The proposed legislation, to be debated by Britain’s House of Lords next month, allows prosecution in cases where behavior or written material–such as a book, play or broadcast–could potentially incite religious hatred.
Home Office officials say the law would not bar legitimate criticism of religion–nor comedians’ lampooning of faiths–but argue that there must be some defense against speech motivated by religious hatred. With religion intruding into politics and the arts across Europe, though, many worry the legislation is a step too far.
Existing British blasphemy laws cover Christianity. Sikhs and Jews are shielded because they are regarded as distinct races falling under laws prohibiting incitement to racial hatred. Muslim groups have lobbied for similar protection since 1988, with the publication of Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses,”
[quote]
Tony Bliar during prime ministers questions was asked if he supported making holocaust denial illegal like it is in several European countries and he said yes he did. This is the kind of dictatorial mentality they have over there.
Well, he’s not in office anymore and he hasn’t done so.
Makkun[/quote]
He’s not in office anymore!?!?!?!?! Wow this is news to me! Who replaced him? Was it Straw or Harperson? Please don’t tell me it was that idiot Brown.
My point had nothing to do with who is presently in power. My point was that when he was prime minister Bliar (who is a lawyer) felt perfectly safe stating in the house of commons that he supported enacting a law that would severely limit freedom of speech and there was not a peep out of anyone. The reason why noone said anything is that is the mentality over there.
The British are very supportive of the government being able to exert a high level of control over what people think and say.
The British don’t have a strong mentality of the people having control over the government. They have a strong mentality of roll over and play dead. Accept without protest what the government does because they are the authorities and authority is never wrong.
America on the other hand was born out of a rejection of the British mentality and way of doing things.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
“the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim”
This is the dialectical beginning, of course, of a study of the good, which takes its beginnings from common opinion or prior philosophical argument.
I think one thing we gather from the discussion is that it does not make sense to speak of a monolithic “Good” as per Platonic idealism, at least when we are discussing ethics. That is, such an inquiry is fit for a different kind of philosophy.
You and PRCalDude are having an interesting conversation, but I would like to point out another possibility, which the Philosophers also contemplated: secular ethical systems are not designed for hoi polloi.
Rather, religion (rightly used) provides the ethical framework through which ordinary people learn behavior based on an absolute authority. Philosophy - which admits from the outset to being provisional - does not provide certainty, and ethics are, for the scholar or philosopher, a matter of faith contingent upon rational considerations about how to live well together.
It is a mistake, I believe, to think that Philosophy can replace religion in its most critical role.[/quote]
There is a problem in basing ethics and morals completely upon a belief in god. The problem is that if people become nonreligious then morals and ethics lose their basis. Which is not to say that agnostics and atheists can’t have ethics or morals, they just need a different reason for why they are important.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Do you live in Britain, stokedporcupine?
no. from what i hear, i doubt i’d want to live there. i never said that i thought the current ethical state of either Britain or America was very good.
In fact, i think there are many things wrong with what seems to be the current outlook and world view of your average American (and i assume, Britain). though i’m sure my list of ethical concerns wouldn’t match yours perfectly, i’m sure it overlaps quite a bit.
this does not mean though that i think a “return to God” is the answer.
Don’t you think it is a bit unfair to call Bishop Ali ignorant for commenting about a country which you don’t live in and don’t know what is going on there?
…
[/quote]
i have called his comments ignorant not for his wrongful assessment of the current situation, but rather for his narrow minded solution.
further, coming from both a fundamentalist and charismatic christian background, i am quite well aware of the christian world view, and of most evangelicals views on orthodoxy, law, and ritual.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
he sounds like an overly pompous ass.
Coming from you, that’s quite hilarious.[/quote]
the difference is that i do not advance my own beliefs in unfair and overly bias ways. instead, i generally only criticize those who attempt to defend their own positions using sweeping generalizations and every sort of fallacy imaginable.
So while of course i hold dogmatic views on many subjects, and i believe truth to be absolute (contrary to those who think i’m a relativistic liberal), i also realize that i am fallible. so, i appreciate careful and thoughtful argumentation, something which is a bit of a rarity.
Nazir Ali is a C of E Bishop, of course he is going recommend the C of E as a solution. He has a good point given that Britain is a Christian country, the Church of England should be trying to attract people to join.
Yes Channel 4 did prevail however the police were able to put a message out to everyone which was this: If you do not have the wealth neccessary to resist an assault by the state you better shut the fuck up. Channel 4 is a corporation with plenty of lawyers to defend it. The common man does not have such protection.
In America with our 1st amendment protection of free speech the police would not attempt such a prosecution. Which is not to say that the mosque might not have been able to try and bring a civil lawsuit, but even there they would have had an uphill battle.
There is a different mentality over here when it comes to freedom of speech. Yes there are some facists like president Bush with his free speech zones but they don’t get much traction.[/quote]
Let me get this straight: you argue that Channel 4 only got off because they are a rich corporation. I’ve been looking for the evidence of that - and I’m afraid I can’t find anything that supports that assertion.
Thanks for pointing out on the US ‘free speech zones’ - what an abomination. Glad that this Bush character isn’t in power anymore… oh wait. I’m not so sure about the protection of free speech in the US - read up on ‘no flight lists’. Seems like exercising your right to free speech may not get you in jail - but it may keep you from going anywhere. My point - don’t lean back in your ‘free speech zone’ and rely on your first amendment, make sure your government doesn’t undermine it either.
See - I’m not at all claiming that the UK is not in need of defending civil liberties and free speech under the current government. Au contraire - they have a dreadful track record of trying to curtail them. But - many of these alarmist threads are simply overblown, and miss the main point. As is this: the impression that UK citizens have to live under fear of being jailed for exercising free speech is not really supported by evidence.
The novelist Ian McEwan has launched an astonishingly strong attack on Islamism, saying that he “despises” it and accusing it of “wanting to create a society that I detest”. His words, in an interview with an Italian newspaper, could, in today’s febrile legalistic climate, lay him open to being investigated for a “hate crime”.
In an interview with Guido Santevecchi, a London correspondent for Corriere della Sera, the Booker-winning novelist said he rarely grants interviews on controversial issues “because I have to be careful to protect my privacy”.
But he said that he was glad to leap to the defence of his old friend Martin Amis when the latter’s attacks on Muslims brought down charges of racism on his head. He made an exception of the Islamic issue out of friendship to Amis, and because he shares the latter’s strong opinions.
Mr McEwan made his comments to Guido Santevecchi, a London correspondent for Corriere della Sera, and it is even possible he could now be investigated by police for a hate crime.[/quote]
But is he? That’s my whole point here - it’s easy to assert that the people ‘may’ and ‘could’, but are they? Not so far. Being watchful is alright, being alarmist without evidence doesn’t help one’s argument.
[quote][…]
The New Blasphemy
Britain Debates The Limits Of Religious Free Speech.
Omar Marzouk, a Muslim comedian from Denmark, had but one request at last month’s Edinburgh Fringe Festival. “Tell me if you don’t find my jokes funny,” he told his audience. “I don’t want to die–I’m not that kind of Muslim.”
Poking fun at the world’s religions was de rigueur at Edinburgh’s annual stage jamboree. Reason: fears that a controversial new “anti-blasphemy” law could curtail freedom of speech. The proposed legislation, to be debated by Britain’s House of Lords next month, allows prosecution in cases where behavior or written material–such as a book, play or broadcast–could potentially incite religious hatred.
Home Office officials say the law would not bar legitimate criticism of religion–nor comedians’ lampooning of faiths–but argue that there must be some defense against speech motivated by religious hatred. With religion intruding into politics and the arts across Europe, though, many worry the legislation is a step too far.[/quote]
You are referring to a debate that happened three years ago about a bill that was defeated in parliament - by a thin majority of one, but still, turned down.
[quote]Existing British blasphemy laws cover Christianity. Sikhs and Jews are shielded because they are regarded as distinct races falling under laws prohibiting incitement to racial hatred. Muslim groups have lobbied for similar protection since 1988, with the publication of Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses,”
Tony Bliar during prime ministers questions was asked if he supported making holocaust denial illegal like it is in several European countries and he said yes he did. This is the kind of dictatorial mentality they have over there.[/quote]
OK, I’m still checking that, but I can’t find any evidence for that. There are articles which accuse him of rowing back on that, and a BBC blog entry on the fact that the UK seems to think that current laws already cover this.
I know that holocaust denial laws are a contentious issue here, and I personally haven’t made my mind up. But I would like to think that it’s not unusual for Germany and Austria to have laws wrt to that - in an attempt to keep neo-nazism at bay. Funnily enough, no one really gets into to trouble for this offense, except for neo nazis. As any society curtails free speech to a certain extent under certain circumstances - including your own - this is the line that’s drawn in Germany.
[quote][…]
He’s not in office anymore!?!?!?!?! Wow this is news to me! Who replaced him? Was it Straw or Harperson? Please don’t tell me it was that idiot Brown.
My point had nothing to do with who is presently in power. My point was that when he was prime minister Bliar (who is a lawyer) felt perfectly safe stating in the house of commons that he supported enacting a law that would severely limit freedom of speech and there was not a peep out of anyone. The reason why noone said anything is that is the mentality over there.[/quote]
After trying to berate stokedporcupine for not knowing about Britain because he doesn’t live here (or so I understood your question earlier), you seem awfully sure you know life in Europe. If you refer to an anti-nazi mentality, I would to certain extent be proud of that. If you are referring to an anti-free speech mentality, I think you’re wrong: so far none of the alarmist predictions you have made in this thread have either happened or were they turned down by parliament, the courts or the media regulator.
[quote]The British are very supportive of the government being able to exert a high level of control over what people think and say.
The British don’t have a strong mentality of the people having control over the government. They have a strong mentality of roll over and play dead. Accept without protest what the government does because they are the authorities and authority is never wrong.
America on the other hand was born out of a rejection of the British mentality and way of doing things. [/quote]
I really don’t get what you are referring to, as you haven’t so far been able to give a current and correct account of any of your assertions being supported by evidence.
As stated before, it is valid to say we should be vigilant towards our governments - and that’s exactly what’s happening; funnily enough the ones that tend to speak up against the curtailment of civil liberties tend to come from what on these boards is being looked down upon as the liberal left wingers. I wonder why that is the case.
[quote]i myself think aristotle’s approach to the topic of ethics works best. while aristotle’s naturalized approach to ethics differs both in scope and method from a classical religious approach, it seems to succeed quite well in studying normative claims and their applications. aristotle is actually enjoying quite a resurgence in modern ethics studies. I also think Kant is quite interesting, though he’s a bit to complicated to touch on here. i’m not so hot on the other main approaches to ethics (such as utilitarianism), though i’m not expert on ethics.
[/quote]
How do you define Aristotle’s naturalized approach?
One of the largest groups of practicing Philosophers is the Society of Christian Philosophers, among others.
As a matter of fact, there is one atheist cheerleader philosopher at Western Michigan (I can’t remember his name—he got in a debate with William Lane Craig a couple of years ago—maybe his name is Quentin Smith) who wrote an article in Philo complaining about the resurgence and exponential growth of Christian scholars. And not just any “Christian scholars per se”----------but EVANGELICAL Christian scholars who don’t buy into Naturalism and who don’t separate public vs. private, but who rather believe all of reality is under the Authority and Lordship of Jesus Christ. If you read his article in Philo a couple of years ago, he expresses amazement that so many EVANGELICAL Christians are full-fledged, full-tenured, professional Christian philosophers, almost close to 20% of the job market.
My point is not to argue, “Christianity is true by virtue of numerical strength,” but to see whether you have read any modern Christian philosophers, like Robert Merrihew Adams, Robert Young, R.G. Swinburne, Allan Donagan, Alasdair MacIntyre, Alvin Plantinga, etc… You might change your mind.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
i would not say this too loudly around here, it is quite the elitist position. the hoi polloi will have none of that now…
on a more serious note, while this might be a more practical solution to the ethical woes of humanity (perhaps THE solution), it only suggests that “the many” are incapable of acting rationally on their own.
For a simple example, one should not need an absolute authority to tell them not to kill. they should be capable of the simple lines of reasoning that would persuade a rational person that killing was wrong (in most cases).
[/quote]
Well, religion and ethics discuss all sorts of actions. So while Aristotle points out that murder, theft, and adultery are absolutely bad actions under any circumstances, what he is preoccupied with is acting beautifully in a human world that does not provide us with a consistent environment. In this sense, virtues are relative to the circumstances, and hard rules cannot be given. Though no one expects that the many will have full virtue, the laws of the city (or the ethical system) provide a frame of reference from which the many may judge their actions.
And I am not sure that the example of killing provides a solid argument for the simplicity of even a basic rational ethics. Reciprocity is the basis of living together in society, and it is generally from this very basic assumption that the core laws are derived. But in light of Thrasymachus’ objection that justice is the interest of the stronger, the supposedly rational basis for avoiding murder is more generally that one avoids killing because one does not want to be killed in turn. But if one estimates that he is able to avoid the consequences, the ostensibly moral foundation for the rule vanishes.
Religion, however, provides an argument that justice transcends human affairs and that one may be held accountable for even those actions which other human beings are unaware of or lack the strength or power to punish. This not only establishes helpful norms (directed at potential murderers), but also provides relief for the victims of violence.
This approach instrumentalizes ethics, and makes it possible to concoct scenarios in which the supposed consequences do not obtain, and immoral things become moral. Insofar as religion and Philosophy both claim to teach us something about human nature, and religion makes the claim that it knows this nature explicitly, the foundations of ethical behavior become inextricably bound with what and who we are, and with living well. That is, one does not live well and ethically because by following the rules one is rewarded; one lives well because living ethically is identical to living ethically.
Religion exists for the sake of men, and for the sake of their living well.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
There is a problem in basing ethics and morals completely upon a belief in god. The problem is that if people become nonreligious then morals and ethics lose their basis. Which is not to say that agnostics and atheists can’t have ethics or morals, they just need a different reason for why they are important. [/quote]
This seems to be what the bishop is highlighting, though he seems to disagree with you that there are alternative bases for ethics (at least that can be adopted after the fact).
At any rate, I am not convinced that human beings, in the main, are constructed such that they will readily adopt secular morality that will guide their actions in the same way religion does.
How do you define Aristotle’s naturalized approach?
[/quote]
i don’t think it matters how i define it, one can just go and read Aristotle. his general methodology to all investigation is presented in the metaphysics and the posterior analytics.
considering that there are only 3 or 4 major professional organizations, this really means very little.
considering that a large percentage of American universities are christian owned and run, this number doesn’t surprise me. count only the secular universities, and this number becomes much smaller, i’m sure.
further, if you look at the top schools for philosophy (NYU, Rutgers, Princeton, pitt, st. Andrews, ucla, MIT, Penn, Brown etc…), you will not find any noticeable percentage of evangelical faculty. you might argue that this doesn’t mean much, but the faculty at these universities are the current leaders and experts in the field.
[quote]
My point is not to argue, “Christianity is true by virtue of numerical strength,” but to see whether you have read any modern Christian philosophers, like Robert Merrihew Adams, Robert Young, R.G. Swinburne, Allan Donagan, Alasdair MacIntyre, Alvin Plantinga, etc… You might change your mind. [/quote]
while i am not familiar with most of them (except for plantinga), my area of specialty is not ethics. further, if plantinga is a representative example, i’m not particularly interested in reading the others. plantinga, while obviously very intelligent, has obvious bais in his epistemological writing. it is quite clear that plantinga knows where he wants to end up, knows what types of claims he wants to support, and constructs his system with a view to get there (in spite of obvious and glaring problems).