insecurity is experienced in all aspects of life – not just life and death situations. Insecurity is a disposition or emotion that can be triggered by social conditioning, social pressure, pressure from a broken water pipe or pressure we put on ourselves. For example, I go to the gym & eat organic because I want to be healthy – I don’t want to be fat & sick. The insecure thought of being fat & sick; drives me to eat right & exercise. Insecurity is a motivator/driver in all aspects of life. — woodart

Sure, but all the examples you give here are due to social conditioning I would say.

Most people go to church to be told what to think. — woodart

And just how is it that you have earned the right to speak for most people? And you accuse me of righteousness! :-} :s >:O

John you chose a word which I think most aptly describes you – equivocation. You have made several statements and then equivocated on them. You portray a sense of religious righteousness which reeks of insecurity, but then deny that it is everywhere. I wish you Godspeed and hope you discover what you are looking for. — woodart

Well I think that's your (mis)interpretation. All I've been advocating is a disposition of reverence towards life: including nature and humanity. I started out referring to it as a "sense of the holy". If you still disagree then perhaps you could quote some passages where you think I equivocate or display "a sense of righteousness which reeks of insecurity", and explain what it is about the words that leads you to think those things.

Otherwise I am just going to continue to think that your imputation of righteousness and insecurity to others is nothing more than a projection of your own state of mind, a projection which leads you to grossly generalize and misunderstand the human situation and other people, and to produce litanies of tedious and somewhat patronizing platitudes. I suppose you probably mean well...perhaps you need to read some actual philosophers, or read them again if you already have?

What is the inherent lack in the human condition? — VagabondSpectre

I always think apophatic concepts are best understood analogically. Load up a few different news sources for the best answer to your question here.

Offering someone eternal salvation as implicit incentive to behave morally, as religion is want to do, exploits their selfishness with a promise for which there is no reason to expect delivery. — VagabondSpectre

This is certainly how religion itself often gets presented. I don't argue with you there at all. But the problem, for me, and probably the reason I'm bothering to slag on through this excruciating discussion, is that I think there's a huge miscommunication through religion, and, conversely, through the subsequent critiques of religion that follow. (My grammar there is deliberate, though maybe clunky. Re-read if necessary). Sure, religion itself in practice gives this incentive for moral behavior, but that's the exact opposite of what is meant within sacred teachings themselves. That's the irony. That's where a mystical approach to religion comes into play. What I always see in the classic "critique of Christianity from a former Christian" is this sheer obsession with hypocrisy. It's almost like there's an emotional wound there....hmmm...wonder if that impedes philosophical reason at all...

But, from a strictly philosophical perspective, it's only the ideas that hold water, right? We should be assessing the ideas themselves, not the failed practices, or psychologizing away the history of the religion.

I won't bother saying more here, I think I've already overstayed my welcome in this thread.

We could exhume and go through some arguments from each of your favorite theologians and religious philosophers, but unless any of them can use reason and logic to substantiate or quantify the supernatural, my objections will always be the same: no proof, no proof, no proof... — VagabondSpectre

I could say the same to you: "We could exhume and go through some arguments from each of your favorite atheistic philosophers, but unless any of them can use intuition and spiritual practice to substantiate or qualify the natural, my objections will always be the same: only proof, only proof, only proof..."

What the above argument suggests is a complete lack of moral development based on empathy or common sense. — VagabondSpectre

But where do these concepts come from, within the history of thought?

Actually the values are up for grabs per my description. First we agree on what values we want our morality to promote, and then we can construct rational arguments (including those based in observation) around those values.

If we don't share any of the same values, then we won't agree on what's moral. Luckily we both likely want to go on living, and in comfort, and also want other people in the world to go on living and also in comfort (or at least free from suffering). These are modest values admittedly, compared to eternal life in paradise for everyone (and avoiding eternal torture in hell) that is... — VagabondSpectre

Not to be trite, but have you tried out this line of reasoning on the political world stage? How might it go if it were presented, do you think?

I wasn't making an appeal to emotion, I was pointing out an implication of your own statements, and you've just reiterated it: to you everything is existentially meaningless (except altruism for some reason) because next to the infinite you view it has having infinitesimally small value. This includes the 70-some odd years of life that your loved ones will live. — VagabondSpectre

Aside from trying to find the subject of this sentence, I'm scrambling to understand how you came to this conclusion (the conclusion I can interpret, anyway) about anything I said.

The thing about meaning is that it only exists when something is around to interpret it. — VagabondSpectre

Oh? Show your work, please...

You don't think that the psychological comfort people get from thinking "they're closer to the infinite" counts as pleasure? — VagabondSpectre

I do not.

I really don't know where you're getting you're information about demons and holiness from though. Not from this world I reckon... — VagabondSpectre

From various readings about the history of Christianity form folks like Tillich, Berdyaev, etc. Tillich's A History of Christian Thought is invaluable, if you find it to be an interesting topic. I'm not sure you do though? But then I'm not sure why this is such an interesting topic for you.

I advocate that people eschew superstitious beliefs in favor of beliefs grounded in observation and reason, morality included. — VagabondSpectre

How do you reckon morality to be something included within observation and reason? I'm pretty sure I brought this up before.

I honestly believe that the main product which religion exports to it's consumers is psychological and emotional comfort, which comes in many forms. The emotional joy that a religious experience can bring is not too different from a sexual climax or a highly enjoyable piece of entertainment; — VagabondSpectre

This seems to be pure conjecture, or maybe pure experience, and I can only respond with my own experience. Which is that I disagree. My experiences of religious experience, sexual pleasure, and entertainment are all very distinctly categorizable, separate phenomenons within my set of experiences.

What is the inherent lack in the human condition? — VagabondSpectre

None whatever. Every human being that is born enjoys a perfectly stable and secure family relationship, in well-appointed dwellings with ample nourishment. They all are educated according to their various capacities so as to reach the optimal mode of life on reaching maturity, at which time they are all gainfully employed to the best of their abilities, whilst enjoying peaceful and wholesome recreational activities in pleasant sorroundings and not wanting for any comfort. As they grow old and mature, they come to terms with the transient nature of their life, so that by the time of their death, mostly at the end of a long and fruitful life, they are reconciled to their end, and wish no more than to pass away sorrounded by their loved ones in peace. How could such a life be lacking in any way?

Bless our Scientistic Overlords for their bountiful worldly blessings.

Sure, but all the examples you give here are due to social conditioning I would say. — John

John – I respectfully disagree. And I think in this one statement we can see your equivocation. Does a broken water pipe make you insecure? Does a broken water pipe come from social conditioning? No, a broken water pipe has little or nothing to do with our social world. It is a force of nature that we have no control over. It just happens and when it does we become insecure. I do generalize about the infinite forces of nature, that affect us all, that make us nervous. We need insecurity, as much as we need air, to propel and motivate us to find solutions to our problems. I would also like to add that I equivocate too because I am insecure. Insecurity is our friend – our coach.

And just how is it that you have earned the right to speak for most people? And you accuse me of righteousness! — John

I am righteous in my own eyes, John, why would I want to be otherwise? We are all seeking answers and righteousness because we are all insecure. That’s why I am here on this forum and I presume the same for you and everyone else. I think it is worthy to question yourself and others in an attempt to refine ones thinking. People go to church, which is a type of therapy, to get answer to difficult questions. We go to a psychotherapist to help realign our thinking – how is a church any different? We need therapy because we are not sure – insecurity. We are all insecure, but we make different choices in how we address this universal problem.

All I've been advocating is a disposition of reverence towards life: including nature and humanity. I started out referring to it as a "sense of the holy". — John

I totally agree with your concept of a "sense of the holy". I think consciousness is a divine gift. I cannot prove this statement, but I can feel it. That is enough for me. I believe with this gift we are obligated to examine ourselves, universe – everything. When I am mindful, I feel my holiness and what has been given me – I am profoundly grateful. I am thankful for my insignificance and insecurity because it leads me to holy thoughts – I am thankful.

John – I respectfully disagree. And I think in this one statement we can see your equivocation. Does a broken water pipe make you insecure? Does a broken water pipe come from social conditioning? — woodart

I doubt that a person who had not been conditioned by their social circumstances to rely on piped water would be made to feel insecure by a broken water pipe.water . In the broadest sense in which you now seem to be speaking of insecurity, then sure we are all more or less insecure one way or another because of our reliance on whatever conditions we have come to rely upon of our physical livelihood, safety and comfort.But whatever these set of conditions are is generally determined by our social circumstances, that is by just how we live.

We are all seeking answers and righteousness because we are all insecure. — woodart

Granting that we are all insecure to some degree about some things, I can't see what advantage treating this universal fact as central could have for philosophical inquiry. We can never free ourselves from all fear. I do agree that it is a good idea to try to become free from concerns about inconsequential anxieties, for example how we appear to others, what others think about us, and so on. But I think that is a bit of a side issue, taking care of which perhaps just frees us up to a greater extent than otherwise for more fruitful inquiries.

I totally agree with your concept of a "sense of the holy". I think consciousness is a divine gift. I cannot prove this statement, but I can feel it. — woodart

Yes, that life is holy and deserving of reverence is not a proposition that needs to, or even can be, proven.Thinking and feeling that way is simply the most affirmational, and hence joyous, disposition. But if we are driven to find rational explanations, then we need to find an acceptable mode or system of thought that supports the feeling.

Granting that we are all insecure to some degree about some things, I can't see what advantage treating this universal fact as central could have for philosophical inquiry. We can never free ourselves from all fear. I do agree that it is a good idea to try to become free from concerns about inconsequential anxieties, for example how we appear to others, what others think about us, and so on. But I think that is a bit of a side issue, taking care of which perhaps just frees us up to a greater extent than otherwise for more fruitful inquiries. — John

I do not think you clearly hear what I am saying about insecurity. Whether we address our fears and concerns in therapy, church or wherever is not my main point. I am saying that insecurity drives our philosophical inquiry. I am saying that insecurity, in whatever form it manifests, is our motivation to reason in therapy, attend a church or for some – have a holy thought. Each individual reacts to their insecurity in their own way. You seem to be suggesting that I should want to free of my insecurity and anxieties. I don’t think it is possible – and – I do not want to free of it. I think it is a blessing.

But if we are driven to find rational explanations, then we need to find an acceptable mode or system of thought that supports the feeling. — John

I was very clear of the “acceptable mode or system of thought that supports the feeling” of holiness. For me it is profound sense of insignificance and insecurity in my universe. I arrive at this rational position, to me, by way of observation and reasoning. I have given some clear reasons why I think this way. I am not asking that you accept my reasons – I am merely stating them. I say what is true for me; I also observe others and make assessments of them. I hear that you are not comfortable with my thoughts on insecurity and perhaps your insignificant-ness – but that does not change my point of view. In fact, it further reinforces it. These are my reasons; do you understand my point of view? I have additional reasons to support my spiritual point of view. I do not think they are conventional and/or widely accepted. I would be glad to share them with you; if you are inclined to hear them?

I always think apophatic concepts are best understood analogically. Load up a few different news sources for the best answer to your question here. — Noble Dust

So you're saying that the lack inherent in the human condition is freedom and freedom from suffering? (that's what I gather from the news, feel free to correct me). I guess my outlook on morality really does directly address that problem then...

This is certainly how religion itself often gets presented. I don't argue with you there at all. But the problem, for me, and probably the reason I'm bothering to slag on through this excruciating discussion, is that I think there's a huge miscommunication through religion, and, conversely, through the subsequent critiques of religion that follow. (My grammar there is deliberate, though maybe clunky. Re-read if necessary). Sure, religion itself in practice gives this incentive for moral behavior, but that's the exact opposite of what is meant within sacred teachings themselves. That's the irony. That's where a mystical approach to religion comes into play. What I always see in the classic "critique of Christianity from a former Christian" is this sheer obsession with hypocrisy. It's almost like there's an emotional wound there....hmmm...wonder if that impedes philosophical reason at all...

But, from a strictly philosophical perspective, it's only the ideas that hold water, right? We should be assessing the ideas themselves, not the failed practices, or psychologizing away the history of the religion.

I won't bother saying more here, I think I've already overstayed my welcome in this thread. — Noble Dust

I have a hard time knowing "what is meant within sacred teachings themselves". You seem to say that the true meaning of religion is altruism, but you haven't explained why. What makes one Christian teaching sacred and another not sacred?

I could say the same to you: "We could exhume and go through some arguments from each of your favorite atheistic philosophers, but unless any of them can use intuition and spiritual practice to substantiate or qualify the natural, my objections will always be the same: only proof, only proof, only proof..." — Noble Dust

Ah but there is little to no philosophy of atheism, certainly no brand to which I ascribe "belief". By criticizing and rejecting theological claims, I become a de-facto atheist. We could go through my favorite critics of theism and their criticisms, but they don't need to prove the natural (nature is self-evident) they just debunk claims of the supernatural.

But where do these concepts come from, within the history of thought? — Noble Dust

Which concepts? Empathy and common sense? You tell me...

Not to be trite, but have you tried out this line of reasoning on the political world stage? How might it go if it were presented, do you think? — Noble Dust

It works extremely persuasively. It's persuasive because it finds common wants and value between two negotiators and uses reason and logic to search for mutually beneficial means of cooperation.

Turns out comfort and freedom from suffering are extremely persuasive.

Oh? Show your work, please... — Noble Dust

You want me to show my work that meaning is only something that exists when a mind is around to interpret it?

You're the one that suggested things like comfort and freedom have no meaning (capital M) compared to "eternality"

" Anyway, what you're missing, and what I may have failed to adequately express is the teleology of "eternity". What meaning does anything at all have within the temporal? Don't talk to me about "finding 'my' happiness", or subjective truth vs. objective. Don't talk to me about my loved-ones' happiness. They'll most-likely live the 70-some years that I'll live, given luck. So? Do their lives have Meaning, capital M? How does meaning cohere within temporality? Does it? Does meaning cohere within eternality? Ask yourself this, don't just give me the stock fundamentalist-soft-atheist doorstep fodder."

Can you show your work?

I do not. — Noble Dust

So the idea that you're getting closer to the infinite by being altruistic doesn't please you? Why do you hold it as valuable to do so then?

How do you reckon morality to be something included within observation and reason? I'm pretty sure I brought this up before. — Noble Dust

And I've clarified it before too. Morality can use observation and reason as a tool to get better. Reason and observation aren't themselves morality.

This seems to be pure conjecture, or maybe pure experience, and I can only respond with my own experience. Which is that I disagree. My experiences of religious experience, sexual pleasure, and entertainment are all very distinctly categorizable, separate phenomenons within my set of experiences. — Noble Dust

I realize that your experience defines religion for you. That's the way of it. What's sacred to you is a matter of the various articles of faith which comprise your beliefs. How you experience it is how you experience it, and that's fine. I'm just here to lay down some reflective pylons to keep people from trampling the flowers as they begin to flail in inspiration of their own personal religious beliefs.

What do you think "guilty" refers to then? If the jury makes a determination of "not guilty", but you allow that this is not necessarily a true determination, and the person might actually be guilty, what does "guilty" refer to? The actual, factual, guilt or non-guilt of the defendant, according to this assumption, is something independent of the jury's judgement. So when the person is judged as "not guilty", and the person is "in fact" guilty, what does "guilty" here refer to? Is it a feeling which the person has, deep inside, this person somehow feels guilt, and this is what "guilty" refers to, that subjective feeling? Or, is it a judgement made by God, that the person is in fact guilty?

The question being, is actual or factual "guilt" a subjective feeling, or an objective judgement? If it's a subjective feeling, then if the person does not believe that they have done something wrong, there is no guilt here. But if it is an objective judgement, doesn't this require the assumption of God, to pass that judgement, and support your notion that the person whom the jury judged as not guilty is "in fact" guilty. — Metaphysician Undercover

In the law, a person is "guilty" of a crime when a court or jury determines the person has committed a crime (or confesses to a crime). A person is "not guilty" of a crime if a court or jury determines that it has not been established "beyond a reasonable doubt" the person committed a crime. There is no recourse to God in the law. There is only recourse to higher courts. The law is a system in itself.

In the law, a person is "guilty" of a crime when a court or jury determines the person has committed a crime (or confesses to a crime). — Ciceronianus the White

My question was, what do you refer to when you say that the person "may in fact be guilty" when the court has determined that the person is not guilty?

Here's your post:

Well, consider. In criminal law, in the U.S. at least, juries regularly decide a defendant is guilty or not guilty of a crime. That's a determination, a finding, in the law; subject to revision as the result of an appeal, but otherwise inviolate. However, that determination is not necessarily true (as commonly defined) or untrue. That's to say, a person may well be not guilty of a crime and yet have committed it--may in fact be guilty of it, or so I think most would say. — Ciceronianus the White

Since it appears like a judgement is necessary in order that the person is actually guilty, and the court has not judged the person as guilty, yet you state that most people would say that the person is "in fact" guilty, then don't you think that most people assume God makes this judgement?

Since it appears like a judgement is necessary in order that the person is actually guilty, and the court has not judged the person as guilty, yet you state that most people would say that the person is "in fact" guilty, then don't you think that most people assume God makes this judgement? — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting points MU.

Certainly, to a theist that would be a sensible interpretation. To a non-theist, perhaps an alternative - and equally workable in my view - interpretation is that the accused themself makes this judgement. So a person is 'in fact guilty' if the person recalls having committed the crime.

I think both absolute-truthists and non-absolute-truthists could accept that meaning. Where they would part company is in the case of somebody with a false memory, or no memory, of the alleged crime.

Since it appears like a judgement is necessary in order that the person is actually guilty, and the court has not judged the person as guilty, yet you state that most people would say that the person is "in fact" guilty, then don't you think that most people assume God makes this judgement? — Metaphysician Undercover

"Guilty" of committing a crime. I think most would say that a person who actually committed a crime is guilty of committing a crime, regardless of whether a jury found that person to be "not guilty" because the jury didn't think the state met burden of establishing that the person did so beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think God is required in order to determine whether the crime actually is/was committed, however.

To a non-theist, perhaps an alternative - and equally workable in my view - interpretation is that the accused themself makes this judgement. So a person is 'in fact guilty' if the person recalls having committed the crime. — andrewk

Yes I mentioned this possibility in my reply to Cicero, you can see it in the quote above. This would be what I called a subjective feeling of guilt. The person knows, deep inside, that what was done was wrong, and feels guilty. The problem which this leads to, as I mentioned, is that if the person doesn't know that what was done was something wrong, we still won't to be able to say that the person is "in fact" guilty, because the person will not believe that a crime was committed. Then we have no principle whereby we can say that the person is "in fact" guilty.


OK, so let's assume that a crime was committed, let's say a theft. We know that the theft occurred from the evidence, a window was broken and the valuables were stolen. No one has been found guilty by neither judge nor jury. Let's say that the person who took the valuables had a reason to steal, the other person owed him money, or he needed to get even with that person for some other reason. So this person who took the valuables feels justified, and does not feel guilt whatsoever.

Now, you and I, andrewk, and whoever might read this, will probably want to judge the person as guilty of theft. But let's assume that absolutely no one, except the thief himself knows what happened. Doesn't it seem like the thief is "in fact" guilty? But, by what principle is this person guilty? There has been no judgement made by a court, nor by any human being, and the person feels no guilt. How can we say that there is any guilt here unless we assume that the judgement is made by God?

Yes I mentioned this possibility in my reply to Cicero, you can see it in the quote above. This would be what I called a subjective feeling of guilt. The person knows, deep inside, that what was done was wrong, and feels guilty. The problem which this leads to, as I mentioned, is that if the person doesn't know that what was done was something wrong, we still won't to be able to say that the person is "in fact" guilty, because the person will not believe that a crime was committed. Then we have no principle whereby we can say that the person is "in fact" guilty. — Metaphysician Undercover

This highlights again the lack of precision of natural language.

I was using 'guilty of the crime' with the meaning of 'had done the crime', whereas you were using it with the sense of 'felt bad about having done the crime'. Etymologically, yours may be more accurate, as I suppose that guilty derives from a root of 'feeling guilt', which is feeling bad about our actions.

I think my meaning may be closer to common use though. When we say that a convicted person is actually innocent, we mean that they did not do the alleged act, not that they don't feel bad about it. Consider somebody that is convicted of the crime of breaking an unjust law. They may be a moral hero in our eyes for standing up to injustice, and may be in their own too. I would not say that Daniel Ellsberg was 'not guilty of breaking official secrecy laws' but I would say that I greatly admire him for doing so.

But let's assume that absolutely no one, except the thief himself knows what happened. Doesn't it seem like the thief is "in fact" guilty? But, by what principle is this person guilty? There has been no judgement made by a court, nor by any human being, and the person feels no guilt. How can we say that there is any guilt here unless we assume that the judgement is made by God? — Metaphysician Undercover

Isn't that because intent is central to guilt? If a person kills another because he or she is in a florid state of psychosis and thinks the other is an evil alien then that person will often be found 'not guilty by reason of insanity'. If a person commits an act with right intention which has bad consequences, they may or may not be guilty, depending on circumstances. I find it hard to see many circumstances in which a person is 'unknowingly guilty' of a crime, but then, that presumes that persons are always sufficiently self-aware and well-informed to make that judgement themselves.

As for 'God's judgement' - bear in mind, in Buddhist ethical philosophy is in many respects quite similar to the Christian, with the cardinal difference that judgement is not passed by God, but that persons suffer the consequences of their evil actions as a consequence of karma.

So you're saying that the lack inherent in the human condition is freedom and freedom from suffering? (that's what I gather from the news, feel free to correct me). — VagabondSpectre

Well, I have a hard time saying whether freedom is inherent, or an inherent lack in humanity. A lack of freedom from suffering (i.e....suffering), would be more of a component, or a result of the lack in the human condition. In my mind, when I say "the lack inherent in the human condition", it doesn't actually signify anything specific, but quite literally, just lack. Emptiness, poverty...etc. That's why I said it's an apophatic idea. I think it's possible to acknowledge a lack, without clearly defining what it's a lack of. With physical poverty, or the emptiness of a bowl, for instance, we can signify what could fill those states of lack. That's a nice analogy, but it doesn't follow that we therefore can signify what should fill the lack in the human condition. But the emptiness, the poverty, is measurably there. But this is why I call it apophatic; in theology, an apophatic conception is a negative way of obtaining knowledge, or truth. It doesn't signify meaninglessness (this most likely does not resonate with you from what you've stated about your views, I'm just explaining mine, and my language). This sort of lack is a principle in the psychology of depression, for instance, as I understand it. There are times where depression doesn't seem to have a real cause other than a chemical imbalance. There's simply a lack, so to speak. The cause may become more clear later on, or not.

I have a hard time knowing "what is meant within sacred teachings themselves". — VagabondSpectre

Studying them would be a good place to start. This is one of the paths of thought that I'm currently hoping to embark on soon. But yes, it's often hard to know how to interpret them.

You seem to say that the true meaning of religion is altruism, but you haven't explained why. What makes one Christian teaching sacred and another not sacred? — VagabondSpectre

I don't really think either of those things, so either you misinterpreted what I said, or I didn't say it well; I don't have the patience to comb back through the debate. Actually, I don't want to make any claim about what the true meaning of religion might be, as a whole; there's definitely no such thing. Each religion contains different meanings (meanings of text, of tradition, of ritual), all of which may be exoteric, esoteric, lost to history, and all of which are constantly evolving, devolving, or going extinct, or being revived...

What do you mean "What makes one Christian teaching sacred and another not sacred"? It would depend on your interpretation of Christianity.

Ah but there is little to no philosophy of atheism, — VagabondSpectre

Really?

We could go through my favorite critics of theism and their criticisms, but they don't need to prove the natural (nature is self-evident) — VagabondSpectre

I'm absolutely no expert at all, but I feel like there's enough particle/wave physics, and theoretical physics out there to at least ask the question of whether nature is self-evident. It's a topic I personally am curious to explore more.

It works extremely persuasively. It's persuasive because it finds common wants and value between two negotiators and uses reason and logic to search for mutually beneficial means of cooperation. — VagabondSpectre

But who out there is actually implementing this on the political world stage? My question was a bit sarcastic, but that's what I was getting at.

You want me to show my work that meaning is only something that exists when a mind is around to interpret it? — VagabondSpectre

Please forgive my tone there; I don't think I was quite in my right mind when I made that post. It's a tendency of mine. But yes, I would love to hear your reasons for that statement.

You're the one that suggested things like comfort and freedom have no meaning (capital M) compared to "eternality"

" Anyway, what you're missing, and what I may have failed to adequately express is the teleology of "eternity". What meaning does anything at all have within the temporal? Don't talk to me about "finding 'my' happiness", or subjective truth vs. objective. Don't talk to me about my loved-ones' happiness. They'll most-likely live the 70-some years that I'll live, given luck. So? Do their lives have Meaning, capital M? How does meaning cohere within temporality? Does it? Does meaning cohere within eternality? Ask yourself this, don't just give me the stock fundamentalist-soft-atheist doorstep fodder." — VagabondSpectre

I can see how you would interpret this paragraph as a suggesting that "comfort and freedom have no meaning (capital M) compared to 'eternality'", but that is not at all what I meant there. I was trying to distinguish the temporal from the eternal, and I was suggesting that Meaning (capital M) can only exist within the eternal. I think it follows that any representation of meaning (for instance, comfort, etc), that exists within the temporal only has value as it relates to Meaning within the eternal. Think of it like this: imagine physical reality as an objectivization of spirit, or the eternal (if that's hard to picture, think of water changing to ice; the element is the same, but the form changes. Now the form is "dead" in the sense that it doesn't flow. Water flows, but ice is stationary. Try to take this analogy outside it's physical constraints and imagine how the physical world could be seen as "dead" or stationary, despite the fact that it isn't in fact so, within it's own rules). Out of physical reality grows consciousness, out of consciousness grows moral concepts, and a mental world in which we talk about the problems of Meaning, or meaning. We can talk about Meaning and meaning if and only if the physical world is an objectivization of the eternal; then Meaning has content; Meaning has no content within the temporal if there's no reference to the eternal. Why? Because the temporal is TEMPORAL. It will end. Meaning will end, and so it's not meaning at all; it's just a willful semblance of something like meaning, to tide us over before our temporal lives end. Comfort, being nice to each other, gourmet food, social justice, social equality, sex. All nice lowercase truths to make us feel like our lives have meaning, before they end in nothingness. Or, before they end, and our participation with eternity begins? My philosophy is kind of all or nothing, if you haven't noticed: Universal Salvation, or Nihilism. Nothing else makes sense to me. What do you think? Do you think a temporal life that ends in nothingness is worth living?

So the idea that you're getting closer to the infinite by being altruistic doesn't please you? Why do you hold it as valuable to do so then? — VagabondSpectre

No, I wouldn't use the word "pleasure" to describe the spiritual journey. Any sort of "pleasure" derived from it is a gift given freely and freely received through the process of the journey; whereas "pleasure" to me denotes something I desire to possess; sexual pleasure, drunkenness, romance, social acceptance...and by the way, I'm not trying to make the typical distinction here in saying that those things are "evil" because they're "of the world" or something. But I absolutely think of those things as pleasures that we actively seek to possess, whereas spiritual "ecstasy", if you will, is a passive, directly participatory experience. Actively seeking to possess spiritual knowledge or experience is exactly the thing that prevents you from getting there. It's apophatic. The same goes for creativity. This elusive thing is the thing that sex and acceptance and drunkenness and physical comfort are striving for. I'm speaking from experience here, on both sides of that coin...

Morality can use observation and reason as a tool to get better. Reason and observation aren't themselves morality. — VagabondSpectre

I can roll with that. Perhaps I missed where you clarified that.

I realize that your experience defines religion for you. That's the way of it. What's sacred to you is a matter of the various articles of faith which comprise your beliefs. How you experience it is how you experience it, and that's fine. I'm just here to lay down some reflective pylons to keep people from trampling the flowers as they begin to flail in inspiration of their own personal religious beliefs. — VagabondSpectre

I wasn't just talking about religious experience in that paragraph, though. I want to be less critical in my tone than I have been in the past in this discussion, but I can't help but feel like this is some classic atheistic "soft-preaching" here; proselytizing the idea that "everyone's religious experience is different and equally valid [but also total bullshit, we just know we're not alowed to say that just yet]". That's honestly how I take this sort of sentiment, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I sincerely hope I'm wrong on that.

I realize that your experience defines religion for you. That's the way of it. What's sacred to you is a matter of the various articles of faith which comprise your beliefs. How you experience it is how you experience it, and that's fine. I'm just here to lay down some reflective pylons to keep people from trampling the flowers as they begin to flail in inspiration of their own personal religious beliefs. — VagabondSpectre

For instance, what else is there in religious experience other than flailing in "inspiration of [one's] own personal religious beliefs"? (flailing clearly being a derogatory word that suggests the implausibility of religious experience). So, to my point, I'm not really sure what you're getting at, here. Is religious experience acceptable or condemnable to you? Religious "experience" seems maybe ok, but "flailing" about religiously (whatever that is), is not? What exactly are these precious flowers you speak of?

There's simply a lack, so to speak. The cause may become more clear later on, or not. — Noble Dust

I would say we're each born with a uniquely shaped hole (or it grows into a unique shape). Want is present in the human condition in general, regardless of station, but the form it takes can vary greatly from person to person. How each of us goes about filling this hole (even if filling it is only temporary) basically encapsulates what I take to outline the meaning of (one's) life. Finding happiness through love or pleasure or scientific or spiritual enlightenment are all expressions of the same basic principle: human want. We can only apophatically approach or discern these wants individually; subjectively. One person can say that material delights are not a sufficient source for happiness, and another can say that spiritual pursuits are also insufficient producers of happiness.

Studying them would be a good place to start. This is one of the paths of thought that I'm currently hoping to embark on soon. But yes, it's often hard to know how to interpret them. — Noble Dust

What I really meant was that within each religion there is a vast set of doctrines that different groups within the religion all claim to be more important than the other. I know what I would pick as the most sacred parts of various religious doctrines were I a believer (the doctrines/verses that correlate with my moral views), but I would inevitably be cherry-picking my own basket. This is a good function of religion though (religion has some capacity to adapt as is by virtue of what religious groups choose to focus on) because it allows religion to somewhat change with the evolving needs and moral views of it's adherents.

In my youth I was over-exposed to several competing Christian sects, the result is that nothing emerged for me as sacred between them. The thing they all had in common though was damnation of the others. The concept of damnation is what most repels me from religion as a whole.

I'm absolutely no expert at all, but I feel like there's enough particle/wave physics, and theoretical physics out there to at least ask the question of whether nature is self-evident. It's a topic I personally am curious to explore more. — Noble Dust

There's really no philosophy of atheism (any good philosophy that is) because there's nothing to philosophize. Theology is philosophy about god, so atheist philosophy would be about "absence of gods"?

Day 1: God is dead. The priests are running amok. I've contracted syphilis. *cough*...

Atheist philosophy is relegated to the rejection of theological and religious belief/philosophy. I too am quite interested in theoretical physics, but unless theoretical physics (the scientific kind) is used to substantiate theistic belief, we need not employ it for a rebuke. Whether or not the presupposed nature of things we interact with is accurate is one thing (the nature of the material world), but presupposing the nature of something that we don't (unambiguously) interact with is something else altogether (the nature of god).

If we cannot even be sure about the former, imagine the strain required to rationalize the latter.

But who out there is actually implementing this on the political world stage? My question was a bit sarcastic, but that's what I was getting at — Noble Dust

The moral framework I've thrust in this thread is really quite basic. It's main feature is an outline of morality itself: standards and strategies designed to promote human welfare (based on shared human values). This differs from some other moral frameworks which suppose that morality represents a set of unchanging and absolute standards (which tend to come from the will of a perfect creator god). Going further to emphasize the use of empiricism, logic, (and even technology), to alter and improve our existing moral stratagems toward more successful ends basically describes humanism. On the world stage this moral platform is quite persuasive. Politics as a whole is meant to be about human welfare, so let's just say that secular humanism is one of the forces which inform that purpose.

Please forgive my tone there; I don't think I was quite in my right mind when I made that post. It's a tendency of mine. But yes, I would love to hear your reasons for that statement. — Noble Dust

Meaning requires interpretation, and interpretation requires awareness. In a nut shell.

Do you think a temporal life that ends in nothingness is worth living? — Noble Dust

Isn't a temporal life better than no life at all? There's some value there; of course it's infinitesimal next to the infinite. I have a basic question though:

Why is the value of meaning dependent on the value of Meaning?. You said it follows, but from what? Can't meaning exist independent of it's capital cousin?

I wasn't just talking about religious experience in that paragraph, though. I want to be less critical in my tone than I have been in the past in this discussion, but I can't help but feel like this is some classic atheistic "soft-preaching" here; proselytizing the idea that "everyone's religious experience is different and equally valid [but also total bullshit, we just know we're not aloud to say that just yet]". That's honestly how I take this sort of sentiment, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I sincerely hope I'm wrong on that.

For instance, what else is there in religious experience other than flailing in "inspiration of [one's] own personal religious beliefs"? (flailing clearly being a derogatory word that suggests the implausibility of religious experience). So, to my point, I'm not really sure what you're getting at, here. Is religious experience acceptable or condemnable to you? Religious "experience" seems maybe ok, but "flailing" about religiously (whatever that is), is not? What exactly are these precious flowers you speak of? — Noble Dust

There's "valid" from the "does it lead to happiness" perspective, and then there's "valid" from the perspective of science and history. Not all religious beliefs are invalid as sources of happiness (but many are. See: Scientology for examples) and not all religious beliefs are irrational (Jesus' do unto others works whether or not god exists). Beliefs pertaining to the supernatural however are as yet not scientifically or empirically or even theoretically substantiated.

Religious flailing comes in many forms. Sometimes it's spiritual inspiration, sometimes it's dogma in a discussion (not to imply anything), sometimes it's actual flailing on the floor (see: modern evangelical revivalists), and sometimes it's the (to me) arbitrary and irrational moral and political views and actions which leak out of the religious world and into the secular world. When the puritanical abolitionists banned booze in America, that was religious flailing. When we socially and physically persecute homosexuals on religious grounds, that's religious flailing. When one religious person condemns another for not sharing their religion, that's religious flailing. The flowers are the lives, rights, and well-being of innocent individuals who don't deserve the treatment that religion can sometimes prescribe or otherwise render.

I condemn some religious experiences, namely the ones which cause harm to self/others. If a religious person holds beliefs which make them happy without contributing to any harm, why should I expect or want reason/empirical science to dissuade them? Why should I bother?

I was using 'guilty of the crime' with the meaning of 'had done the crime', whereas you were using it with the sense of 'felt bad about having done the crime'. Etymologically, yours may be more accurate, as I suppose that guilty derives from a root of 'feeling guilt', which is feeling bad about our actions. — andrewk

What you described though is "... that the accused themself makes this judgement. So a person is 'in fact guilty' if the person recalls having committed the crime." In this scenario, the person must recall committing "the crime", and therefore the guilt is due to knowing oneself to have committed a crime. That's why I called it a subjective guilt, it is a judgement by oneself, that I have done something wrong. The person will necessarily feel bad about it, if only for the moment, because to make the judgement "I have done wrong" is itself a bad feeling.

Where the issue is, is that the person who is "in fact guilty" of the crime, may not believe that a crime was committed. The other people see evidence of a crime, and believe a crime was committed, so they believe that someone is guilty. The person whom we are assuming is "in fact guilty", does not believe that a crime was committed, and does not judge oneself as guilty.

I think my meaning may be closer to common use though. When we say that a convicted person is actually innocent, we mean that they did not do the alleged act, not that they don't feel bad about it. Consider somebody that is convicted of the crime of breaking an unjust law. They may be a moral hero in our eyes for standing up to injustice, and may be in their own too. I would not say that Daniel Ellsberg was 'not guilty of breaking official secrecy laws' but I would say that I greatly admire him for doing so. — andrewk

The issue here, is a slightly different issues, so I'm going to stay away from it, so as not to confuse things.

Isn't that because intent is central to guilt? If a person kills another because he or she is in a florid state of psychosis and thinks the other is an evil alien then that person will often be found 'not guilty by reason of insanity'. If a person commits an act with right intention which has bad consequences, they may or may not be guilty, depending on circumstances. I find it hard to see many circumstances in which a person is 'unknowingly guilty' of a crime, but then, that presumes that persons are always sufficiently self-aware and well-informed to make that judgement themselves. — Wayfarer

We might have to ask Ciceronianus about that one, but I don't think that intent is central to guilt, if "intent" refers to being inclined toward what one knows is wrong, because as they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse. So if a person commits a crime without intending to commit a crime, that person will still be just as guilty. Insanity is a different issue.

This question is relevant to the concept of "original sin". The myth, as commonly told, states that Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit. But it is also only by eating the fruit that they are said to gain the knowledge of good and evil. So there is some inconsistency, or paradox here, because they cannot know that obeying or disobeying God is good or bad, until they eat the fruit. If they obtain guilt from eating the fruit, as the story goes, then guilt must be independent from the intent to do an act known to be wrong, because it is impossible that they intended to do what they knew was wrong, when they could not know the difference between right and wrong.

So we might class "intent" as something other than the intent to do what is known to be good or bad. In this way an intentional act would be an act which one carried out for a purpose, with no necessity of deciding whether the act was good or bad. Any purposeful act can be judged for guilt regardless of whether the person knows that the act is good or bad. The random act of an insane person appears to have no purpose, and therefore no intent. But this requires that an act be judged for the presence of intent in order that the person be guilty. So in our example, of the person who is not judged by the court to be guilty, but is "in fact guilty", this person would have to be judged by God for the presence of intent.

Now, you and I, andrewk, and whoever might read this, will probably want to judge the person as guilty of theft. But let's assume that absolutely no one, except the thief himself knows what happened. Doesn't it seem like the thief is "in fact" guilty? But, by what principle is this person guilty? There has been no judgement made by a court, nor by any human being, and the person feels no guilt. How can we say that there is any guilt here unless we assume that the judgement is made by God? — Metaphysician Undercover

If we assume a person is guilty of a crime when that person commits a crime, and we assume that person committed a crime, then the person is necessarily guilty of a crime. It's possible nobody but the person who committed a crime is aware that a crime was committed, but it doesn't follow in that case that a crime was not committed or that the person is not guilty of a crime.

The person will necessarily feel bad about it, if only for the moment, because to make the judgement "I have done wrong" is itself a bad feeling. — Metaphysician Undercover

They won't necessarily feel bad about it. When I say they 'recall having committed the crime' I mean they recall having done the alleged act, not that they also judge the act to be bad. They may even, as in Ellsberg's case, judge the act to be good.

As I pointed out above, you and I are using the key words differently. Replace 'crime' by 'act' and 'guilty of' by 'actually did' and you will have an accurate translation of my statement from my personal language to yours.

Gandhi is another example that comes to mind. In my language he 'was guilty of the crime of burning a racial identity card' and I revere him for that and no doubt he felt good about having done it. In your language he 'performed the act of burning a racial identity card'.

There is no difference in meaning. Only in the words used to convey the meaning.

The described scenario is that many people are aware that a crime was committed, because of the evidence. So the deduction is that there is a person responsible for the crime. Therefore it is assumed that there is a person who is "in fact guilty". We do not know who committed the crime. The person who committed the crime does not believe it was a crime. How is that person "in fact" guilty?

They won't necessarily feel bad about it. When I say they 'recall having committed the crime' I mean they recall having done the alleged act, not that they also judge the act to be bad. They may even, as in Ellsberg's case, judge the act to be good. — andrewk

How is that person guilty then? "Guilt" implies a judgement of wrongdoing. If the person believes that what was done was good, there is no judgement of wrongdoing, and therefore no guilt. Your claim was "a person is 'in fact guilty' if the person recalls having committed the crime." But if the person recalls the act as good, and therefore recalls committing a good act, then there is no guilt, even if we might judge the act as a bad act.

As I pointed out above, you and I are using the key words differently. Replace 'crime' by 'act' and 'guilty of' by 'actually did' and you will have an accurate translation of my statement from my personal language to yours. — andrewk

We cannot translate "guilty" to "actually did", because "guilty" implies a judgement of wrongdoing, and "actually did" does not. To make this translation you remove the essence of "guilty", which is the judgement of wrongdoing, and you are left with something completely different from what we are discussing, and that is "guilty". There is no point in "translating" the proposition into another proposition with a completely different meaning, because then we would be discussing something completely different. And besides, that is not a proper translation.

Gandhi is another example that comes to mind. In my language he 'was guilty of the crime of burning a racial identity card' and I revere him for that and no doubt he felt good about having done it. In your language he 'performed the act of burning a racial identity card'.

There is no difference in meaning. Only in the words used to convey the meaning. — andrewk

I don't see your point here. Are you suggesting that "guilty" does not necessarily imply a judgement of wrongdoing? Do you ever actually use "guilty" this way? Do you ever say that someone is guilty without implying that there has been a judgement of wrongdoing, either by yourself, or by someone else? If what you are insisting on, is that we can replace "guilty" with "actually did", without a difference of meaning, then this could only be true if you are using "guilty" in a different way from me. This would just be an equivocation to avoid the issue. What's the use in that?

The described scenario is that many people are aware that a crime was committed, because of the evidence. So the deduction is that there is a person responsible for the crime. Therefore it is assumed that there is a person who is "in fact guilty". We do not know who committed the crime. The person who committed the crime does not believe it was a crime. How is that person "in fact" guilty? — Metaphysician Undercover

The point I've been trying to make is that what is the case in the law (e.g., whether a person is guilty or not guilty of a crime) isn't necessarily what people commonly believe is the case. As far as I know, that's the only claim I've been making. I think people commonly believe that a person is guilty of a crime if the person commits the crime and so is responsible for it. In the law, though it's entirely possible that a person may be found not guilty of a crime and yet have committed it.

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking why people believe that someone who has committed a crime is guilty of committing a crime?

Want is present in the human condition in general, regardless of station, but the form it takes can vary greatly from person to person. How each of us goes about filling this hole (even if filing it is only temporary) basically encapsulates what I take to outline the meaning of (one's) life. — VagabondSpectre

I agree on want being present in the human condition in general. But as far as how we fill the hole encapsulating our meaning in life, I revert back to Tillich's faith. That sound's like ultimate concern to me; the problem is that you're equivocating it with something absolute. The fact that you label our own individual search as the meaning of life labels that search as absolute. If it's not absolute, then it's easily over-turned. Which I think it is. Any ascribing of a meaning to life has to be either absolute (capital M Meaning), or not a real meaning. I don't know how else to phrase that. An ascribing of meaning that is not absolute is always, ultimately, only tentative. So your description of the meaning of life here would only be tentative. How can it be otherwise if it's based purely subjectively? This to me is an equivocation of objectivity with subjectivity. "The meaning of (one's) life" is an objectivity, but you're assigning it subjectively. The Meaning (capital M) should rather be the objective, while the subjective is you or I.

but I would inevitably be cherry-picking my own basket. This is a good function of religion though (religion has some capacity to adapt as is by virtue of what religious groups choose to focus on) because it allows religion to somewhat change with the evolving needs and moral views of it's adherents. — VagabondSpectre

Right, and I don't think cherry picking is a problem; the phrase just has a negative connotation. I "cherry pick" when I accept Jesus's unconditional love as something I want to emulate, and something I consider deeply True. And then I continue cherry picking when I reject the notion that Scripture is innerant, or that hell exists. I'm not taking the convenient bits, I'm taking the bits that resonate with the part of me that seeks the truth.

The thing they all had in common though was damnation of the others. The concept of damnation is what most repels me from religion as a whole. — VagabondSpectre

I fully agree. My first post on this forum was on that very topic. My OP here is a good reference point for a lot of my thinking:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/762/otherness-forgiveness-and-the-cycle-of-human-oppression/p1

There's really no philosophy of atheism (any good philosophy that is) because there's nothing to philosophize. — VagabondSpectre

But you and other atheists philosophize, and you do so from your position of atheism. I really don't see how you can keep saying otherwise. I get that atheism is, formally, a lack of belief in God, that's obvious. But to then say you have no atheistic philosophy is nonsensical. Just because it's a simple lack of belief does not mean you have no philosophical beliefs that relate to your stance of atheism. Lack of belief in God has to profoundly affect how you do philosophy, which it clearly does.

Isn't a temporal life better than no life at all? There's some value there; of course it's infinitesimal next to the infinite. — VagabondSpectre

Once you've glimpsed the infinite, the eternal, it's hard to be satisfied with just the temporal.

Why is the value of meaning dependent on the value of Meaning?. You said it follows, but from what? Can't meaning exist independent of it's capital cousin? — VagabondSpectre

I explained that in my description of physical reality being an objectivization of spirit. There would be no meaning without Meaning, in this scenario. Lowercase meaning is descended from Meaning.

The flowers are the lives, rights, and well-being of innocent individuals who don't deserve the treatment that religion can sometimes prescribe or otherwise render. — VagabondSpectre

Something I've been trying to get at all along here, is where does your conception of morality stem from? Historically, a lot of the moral framework we all live within is descended from Christianity. That's why I asked about your flowers. How do you even conceive of "lives, rights, and well-being of innocent individuals" as having value or meaning? Why do those things matter? Why do they matter within a temporal life? Those concepts were originally predicated on the eternal, not the temporal. Ripped from an eternal framework and placed within a temporal one, they have no actual content.

Are you suggesting that "guilty" does not necessarily imply a judgement of wrongdoing? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. That is how I use the term. I understand that it is not how you use it. Are you familiar with David Chalmers' very useful notion of a Verbal Dispute? That is what this is.

In the law, though it's entirely possible that a person may be found not guilty of a crime and yet have committed it.

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking why people believe that someone who has committed a crime is guilty of committing a crime? — Ciceronianus the White

What I'm asking is how is it possible that the person who was found not-guilty by the court is "in fact guilty"? By whose judgement is that person guilty?

Yes. That is how I use the term. I understand that it is not how you use it. Are you familiar with David Chalmers' very useful notion of a Verbal Dispute? That is what this is. — andrewk

I'm sorry, I didn't recognize your use of "guilty". But you should not blame me for this. I've never come across that use before, and it's not in my dictionary (check dictionary.com for example). Did you just create this new use for the sake of argument? I'm sure that if you go around making up your own definitions, known only to you, just for the sake of argument, you will encounter many Verbal Disputes. In this case, the blame is on you.

I didn't blame you, and I'm sorry that you thought I did. I can't see anything I wrote that implied that. Recognising the existence of a Verbal Dispute is a way of resolving an apparent disagreement, not a way of allocating blame. I find it very helpful, and usually both parties benefit.

By the way, I don't think my use is that unusual. I place very little credibility on dictionaries for philosophical discussions, but since you have referenced one it may help for you to consider the first definition under item 2 in this Oxford Dictionary definition: 'having done something illegal'. Or, if one prefers Cambridge, we have here: 'Responsible for breaking a law'. That law could be that one has to report any sightings of Jews to the Gestapo, and a saint could be guilty of breaking that law (and some were).

By the way, I don't think my use is that unusual. I place very little credibility on dictionaries for philosophical discussions, but since you have referenced one it may help for you to consider the first definition under item 2 in this Oxford Dictionary definition: 'having done something illegal'. Or, if one prefers Cambridge, we have here: 'Responsible for breaking a law'. That law could be that one has to report any sightings of Jews to the Gestapo, and a saint could be guilty of breaking that law (and some were). — andrewk

That definition doesn't support your claimed usage. First, it qualifies "illegal", later in the sentence as "something bad", and second, even if it just said "something illegal", that would require the same type of judgement of the act, that it was "in fact" illegal. So this would just change the need of having the action judged in relation to some moral standard, to a need to have it judged in relation to some legal standard.

To your credit though, when I reflect, I recognize a sort of sloppy, metaphorical use of "guilty", where someone might say "yes I am guilty of that", signifying "I did that", even if it was a good act. But that's in jest, and if this is the usage you are looking at, then we're not talking about the same thing, because I am talking about the required judgement that an act is bad, wrong, or illegal. So it doesn't make any sense to introduce that usage of the word because it just directs our attention away from the issue which is being discussed.

I didn't blame you, and I'm sorry that you thought I did. I can't see anything I wrote that implied that. Recognising the existence of a Verbal Dispute is a way of resolving an apparent disagreement, not a way of allocating blame. I find it very helpful, and usually both parties benefit. — andrewk

OK, I accept that you didn't blame me, It just appeared like you were being critical of me not wanting to accept this as a Verbal Dispute. And I still don't believe it is a Verbal Dispute. I think you are making up this claim of a different usage, as a distraction. Clearly, what I have been talking about is the need for some sort of judgement concerning the quality of an action, in order for there to be "guilt" associated with that action. And you recognized this with your first post, saying "the person recalls having committed the crime". If a person recalls having committed a "crime", then the person has passed that judgement, that the act committed was not legal. If you now want to change your statement to "the person recalls having acted", you are not staying true.

Perhaps though, I'm now starting to see your point. Are you arguing that a person can have zero respect for the law, but at the same time, hold one's own system of judging good and bad, completely independent of the law? So the person judges oneself as "guilty" of having broken the law, but "not-guilty" of having made a bad action. Therefore despite having broken the law, and judging oneself as guilty, the person has absolutely no remorse, thinking that the action was good, according to some standard higher than the law. If this is the case, then how does that person justify the judgement of "not-guilty" except by turning to a higher law, such as the law of God? Surely the person cannot justify this judgement of "not-guilty", on a whim, after breaking the law. How does the person justify "the law is bad in this situation"? Or does that person just always believe oneself to be higher than the law?

Are you arguing that a person can have zero respect for the law, but at the same time, hold one's own system of judging good and bad, completely independent of the law? — Metaphysician Undercover

That goes too far for me. Look at my Gandhi example. Did he have no respect for the law? Of course not. He was a lawyer! He just had no respect for the race laws of South Africa.

The higher law that for Gandhi and others overrules the race law is his ethics. That does not require a belief in God. For some people such a belief is involved, while for others it is not. This is vanilla meta-ethics. I assume you are very familiar with all this and do not find it controversial.

It would be interesting to know how Gandhi pleaded in court when tried for burning his race card. I imagine he pleaded guilty, because he did not want to deny he did it - that would have undermined his campaign, shifting the discussion from whether a certain law is immoral to whether Gandhi did a certain act. But I do not have the details of the event. Perhaps one of the learned lawyers on here can help.

Another good example is people charged under the (US Federal) Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, for helping a slave evade recapture (penalty six months' jail and $1000). Again I imagine they would plead guilty if caught, in order to make a public stand against the law, but I don't know. Again, maybe one of our lawyers can help with that.

That goes too far for me. Look at my Gandhi example. Did he have no respect for the law? Of course not. He was a lawyer! He just had no respect for the race laws of South Africa. — andrewk

I don't see how this follows, logically. If a person has no respect for a particular law, how can that person have respect for "the laws in general"? It requires referring to a principle higher than "the laws in general" in order to determine which particular laws that one should not have respect for. Referring to something higher than the laws, in order to determine that particular laws are inapplicable in particular situations, implies disrespect for "the laws in general".

The higher law that for Gandhi and others overrules the race law is his ethics. That does not require a belief in God. For some people such a belief is involved, while for others it is not. This is vanilla meta-ethics. I assume you are very familiar with all this and do not find it controversial. — andrewk

No, I'm not familiar with vanilla meta-ethics. But I do not see how an individual can reasonably place one's own personal ethics as higher than the law without reference to God. As soon as an individual adopts the principle that one's own ethics can overrule the laws, at will, then one cannot reasonably deny that others can overrule the laws at will, as well. So the law becomes useless. But if one cites "God" as the basis for this overruling, then it follows that this individual expects that others who wish to overrule the law will refer to God as well. The reference to "God", indicates that it is not one's own personal ethics which is responsible for the overruling, but God's ethics.