Which reactionS, behaviorS, and actionS would you like to see denounced?
You started with singular and went to plural
Here are some being denounced:
How hard have you tried to look into whether what you are saying is true or not?
As long as people maintain the ability to consider things for themselves, you will continue to not have the ability to consider Islam as a good idea. Great. Thanks for letting us know.
Weeellll, not exactly. Deductive reasoning deals with metaphysics. Science operates on inductive reasoning. Probability indicates causation between two physical objects, the scientific method.
You cannot test deductive reasoning with experiments, though experiments can inform on the deductive claim. Deductive reasoning can only be dealt with by logic. And deductive reasoning is binary, either something is true or it is false. It deals in absolutes.
If you can disprove a hypothesis with reason alone, you donāt need to bother testing scenarios. /nitpicking
This stuff is really easy to nitpick.
This isnāt true, for example: A deductive argument can be of the correct form, but if one of the premises is not sound, the conclusion isnāt false, it is indeterminate.
KInda both inductive and deductive IMO. Inductive generally is how hypothesis is formed (seeing a pattern). Deductive is used to build confidence in the hypothesis. If enough confidence is built, it can make its way towards being a theory.
No, thatās not how it works. If the premises are true and the conclusion follows from those premises then that conclusion is true. If one of the premises are false then the argument is false.
What your talking about are situations where the certain truth about a premise may be in question. Thatās not a problem with the argument method, nor does it validate or invalidate the premise. It means the truth of the premise lacks certainty, which in its own right becomes the conclusion of another argument.
In other words, a deductive argument is still binary in itās validity. If any of the premises are falsified, then the argument is false. If all the premises are verified, the argument is true.
What it boils down to is that there are very few deductive truths. But the things that are deductively true are 100% true all the time, in all possible worlds and can never be false.
Deductive reasoning is the basis for the philosophy of science. Deductive truths are not scientifically testable. They are not made of matter, there are no variables to isolate. Deductive reasoning is the operating behind science, but science cannot test its own philosophy scientifically.
If the argument is valid, then if the premises are true the conclusion is true.
However,
When a premise is shown to be false, the conclusion (or claim) of the argument is not necessarily false. It is indeterminate.
I did notice you said the argument is false, when I am talking about the conclusion or claim. I am willing to say the argument is false sure (never claimed that). What I care about it if the claim is true or not, and a false premise in an argument does not guarantee the claim to be false.
I am just talking about what type of reasoning is used at the different stages of science.
I donāt think so. First, religion is a means not an end, so one can question whether or not another is āgoing about it the right wayā. But you cannot prove religion, it, itself is a method.
Second, the object, the core at the root of a given religion needs to exist and be receptive to itās adherence. Like, if you decide to make a rock, your god, you can create a whole religion worshiping the rock but the entire exercise is pointless.
Now we have a new religion that I am certain is false. The religion is critical race theory\ intersectionalism\ woke identitarianism. It has original sin (white racism), it has public confessions, apostasy, and rituals; all hallmarks of a religion. But itās god is some weird ideology that somebody made up out of their ass. This religion is not equal to say, the āBig Threeā, Christianity, Judaism, Islam. Neither in itās object of worship, nor its methodology. Unlike the Big 3, this religion can be defeated and it cannot stand up to scrutiny. Thatās why part of its MO is to rewrite history, destroy the Big 3. If you dare to question it, you will be cancelled, because itās easily disrupted by mere questioning. The only way to keep this religion going is through violence and intimidation, which is why we see the violence we see today.
At least you can be pretty confident (complete confidence if you ignore the problem of solipsism) that the rock exists.
This is not a religion.
Christianity and Islam are the two largest religions. Judaism is way down the list.
This is common in many religions. The degree to which you get cancelled is different.
I agree. Itās a cult.
Yes, your right if other premises can be introduced to support the conclusion in another argument. You are correct.
@sloth @pat
I am asking this seriously. There has been talk on here about separation of religion and state. What would be the bad outcomes of a Christian theocracy? After all, your both Christian. This is not a trick question. As said, I think theocracy would be better than what we have today, but considering Ive never lived under one, I certainly donāt know. However I am starting to think Iām unique (not in an arrogant way) because I am not obsessed with rights, freedom or liberty. That is, I donāt think these things should take precedence over others. I really donāt. I could get by on limited rights in a sane, serious country, what we used to be. Just let me be a schlep with a family and work, some recreation, safety, healthcare, and Iām fine! I donāt want to be bothered with voting, donāt want to be politicized during every waking moment, and donāt want a degenerate world around me. Itās quite simple!
You mean slavery?
I guess you do.
I donāt need a Christian theocracy. And it isnāt realistic. The US is a post-Christian nation. Genuine Christianity is counter culture now. Coalitions beyond Christians are necessary.
So long as there is a common good with a traditional view of morality, Iām happy. But that will be a fight uphill.
I bounce around
https://mobile.twitter.com/PatrickDeneen
https://mobile.twitter.com/roddreher
https://mobile.twitter.com/Vermeullarmine
While an outright Christian theocracy isnāt necessary, I do think some faith based assumptions the concerning value of human life, moral obligations and duties, and rights will need to be held in a common creed.
Well, I got some good answers for you. I am for the separation of church and state. It isnāt that the church couldnāt make a fair system, it has and it did. It also went sideways really badly. So generally, like with Constantine in Rome, initially it was a good thing and people were more free. But others get in and want to wield power and if the means to getting power is through the church, then they will go through the church. So you have āchurch folkā ending up doing evil shit that hurts people.
The problem is unfettered power has the great propensity for evil. And when you dance with the devil, you donāt change the devil, he changes you.
So we are filled with history where church run states were very oppressive, like āGame of Thronesā kind of stuff.
Further, under a theocracy freewill takes a hit, because sin is illegal and everybody is policing morality. This would be fine if everybody were moral, but they are not policing on what actually is moral they are policing their interpretation of morality, which may or more likely, not correct.
The U.S. did it right. Itās the first constitution that was dedicated to limiting the power of government, versus publishing edicts on societal behavior. But they put in the protection freedom of religion as well as speech in the 1st amendment to the Bill of Rights.
Theocracy is freedom limiting. There are, for example, very few Christians and Jews in Muslim theocracies. And itās because those people are openly prosecuted and harassed with the blessing of the government. So those who can leave, they leave. So it would be with a Christian theocracy. Muslims and Jews would likely be persecuted to some degree. And people need to be free to be what they want to be.
Separation of Church and state is about freedom.
Some folks incorrectly think this means that there cannot be any religious tenets in the law at all, which is the opposite of separation of church and state. That is state mandated atheism and that is just an a-theocracy, functioning in the same way as a theocracy.
English common law is based on some Christian ideals. That isnāt a theocracy, those are just good things that happened to be also taught by Christianity, which is the nebulous of all western thought and culture. And morality, politics and law do intersect at various points, which is not a negative. But itās also means that Christianity the faith is not running the government.
Long story short, politics and religion tend to poison each other. Iād say the former being more poisonous than the latter.
I can write a term paper on the topic, but hopefully I explained myself well enough.
Thanks for the thought-provoking response. It had me reflecting on my thoughts posted.
I donāt know if this makes sense but a religious person should value having the freedom to sin in the temporal world because thatās how you prove your faith.
@sloth @pat My first RCIA class is Monday. I am going to attend a Latin Mass at a traditional church near me next week.
Sweet! That will be interesting I am sure. Thatās pre-Vatican 2 stuff. I am glad they still do it.
There is a sub-group of pre-Vatican 2 aficionados. I do enjoy the pomp and circumstance, but they are the super-conservative wing of the church. Itās up to you what you like, of course.
Just FYIā¦ Because Amy Barrett is a staunch Catholic and being nominated for SCOTUS, be prepared to for the anti-Catholic hate to be on BLAST. The Dems are already attacking her faith, (presumingly she does not have an old sex tape floating around) so thatās the only thing they can get her on.
Just know, the hate will be strong and all over the media.
Youāre right.
The ones near me are SSPX and SSPV.
@BrickHead, Iām curious as to why youāve seemingly chosen to follow catholicism and/or Christianity over Judaism?
Iām not judging as I donāt happen to follow any type of organised religion, though I do identify as Jewish.
My biggest problems with the prospect of a theocracy stems from legislature that may stem from religion/state merging as two.
Off the top of my head religion tends to denote non heteronormativity, abortion etc as sinful. Whilst I believe it is fine for one to view these commodities as a āsinā on the basis of religious belief, I donāt believe it is acceptable to openly discriminate, persecute against or deny others access to healthcare on the basis of religion. It isnāt a choice to be gay, therefore it isnāt ethical to persecute, kill, imprison or forcibly convert someone on the basis of homosexuality etc.
Understood, it is understandable to not be obsessed with rights IF said civil rights being infringed upon are rights that donāt particularly matter. For instance, in Australia you NEED to ride a bike with a helmet on or you risk copping a large fine. If you donāt like wearing helmets then this may be an annoyance as it theoretically should be an individualistic choice to make. I can get why people are irritated with this ānanny stateā rule, but on the other hand itās not that difficult to just wear a helmet and itās safer + more sensible to do so. That being said, I find the prospect of civil liberties very importantā¦ So long as said liberties donāt infringe upon the greater well-being of a society. I would never be okay with being bossed around by an authoritarian regime. The concept of the government mandated rule mandating my daily actions, what I do for recreation etc makes me very uneasy. Legitimate democracies in theory arenāt rifle with corruption and autocratic action, in my opinion dictatorships/communistic governments tend to fall victim to greed associated with power more frequently than democracies.
If you start seriously infringing upon civil liberties like cracking down on homosexuality, premarital sex, ability to drive or work on Fridays and Saturdays (if theocracy was theoretically orthodox judaism) and whatnot the issue is far more pressing.
Current examples of theocracies would be sayā¦ Iran. Granted, the philosophical ideologies preached differ quite dramatically within Islam as opposed to Christianityā¦ But issues such as female genital mutilation, rape/sexual violence, persecution and religious extremism are rifle.
Morality is generally subjective to individualistic interpretation, without democracy societal beliefs/interpretations of morality may not be adhered to. You could argue for separation of certain societies based upon ideological beliefs, and different societies with differing sociocultural normalities do currently exist.
I followed Judaism for years, went to synogauge every week and the whole shebang. In the end I interpreted religious text as a set of fundamentals indicative of how we as a society should behave. Many of these ideologies preached seem outdated to me. I believe the fundamental idea of religion is to instill faith and good morale, but not every modern man/woman needs faith to live a fufiled life. Iām okay with being uncertain about many parameters regarding humanity/life, how exactly we came to be and what happens after death. I donāt need an answer for these variables and I am very comfortable knowing perhaps this is all we have, there may be nothing in the afterlife.
Furthermore, in secular democratic nations I donāt believe we need religious text to teach us how to behave. Itās obvious actions such as rape and murder are abhorrent.
@unreal24278
Thanks for the post. Itās going to take a bit of writing to respond. So Iāll try to respond during the week.