:up:

Yes. But I don't think that anything goes. "Valid" is the word I think of as correct. — Ludwig V

I think you have this backward. Validity is logic based, and relies on interpretation. Definition is essential to validity, as the fallacy of equivocation demonstrates. So interpretation is prior to logical proceeding, as prerequisite and necessary for it. Therefore interpretation cannot be judged in terms of valid and not valid, which are standards of logic, it must be judged by some other standards.

Validity depends on context. By asking different questions, one sets a context. — Ludwig V

Based on what I said above, I think this is incorrect. Logic is designed to be context independent, that's the beauty of it. Definitions and such release it from the confines of context, and this is what gives it such a wide ranging applicability. Context serves to ground any premises which are not clearly defined. And of course, since we cannot have an infinite regress of words defining words, there will always be an appeal to context, ultimately, for complete understanding. But this has to do with the soundness of the logic, not the validity. So soundness may depend on context, but validity does not.

I would propose a distinction between two forms of context, primary and secondary context. "Context" in the primary sense refers to the mind of the author, what the author was thinking about. "Context" in the secondary sense refers to the author's surroundings, one's environment. We mut be careful not to conflate or confuse these two because this would leave us susceptible to deception. In general, we have access to the author's environmental conditions, to a large extent, through our sensory capacities, and we assume to an extent that the author's mind reflects one's environment to an extent. But this is really a mistaken assumption, because the author's writing is an expression derived from one's intention, which is not necessarily a reflection of that person's environment. Therefore it is necessary to establish the author's mind, with its intention, as primary context, and allow that there is no necessary relation between this and the secondary context, the author's environment.

Whaaaaat? Do you really feel like that? Is that unenlightened or just sooooooo sad?
If you truly believe 'caring is not rational,' than how would you ever be capable of experiencing love? — universeness

What do you feel? Do you feel rational? It appears you are incredulous that I even mean what I say. But perhaps you can tell me the rationale of love? I would be most interested...

If you have reasons to love someone, you don't love them — Zizek

My argument is very simple, and resolves to the question of by what authority is theism judged? If one sticks to the facts, and to the fact/value distinction, the judgement cannot be rationally made. That it is made, and has been made throughout this thread, is the dogma of atheism. — unenlightened

What about peanut butter? Or electric cars? Or Hemingway? May one judge them according to one's inclination? Where there is no authority, or set criteria, how can there be dogma?

Maybe there's more of that in the US than here in Australia; I haven't encountered it to be honest, except perhaps among extremist sects like the Plymouth Brethren — Janus

Exactly. But you should start to be afraid.

Latin America - This period of religious dynamism has also been a notably violent one in the region, initially characterized predominantly by state repression and struggles to defend human rights and, more recently, by criminal violence and efforts to enhance citizen security.

This movement is now increasingly involved in electoral politics, advocating for conservative social and political policies based on literal interpretations of the Bible.

In recent years, religiously inspired nationalist movements have gained prominence in several countries around the world. Few cases are more worthy of greater study than India

This chapter investigates the political mobilization of religious networks in the construction of the European Union by focusing on the role of key religious organizations in dialogue with European institutions, from the 1950 Schuman Declaration to the institutionalization of religious dialogue in Article 17 of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty

and, of course, lest we forget

7 Countries With A Theocratic Government Today

You figure an emotional, raggle-taggle bunch of unbelievers on a sliding scale poses an equal threat?

If all you are advocating is that people become better educated, then I have no argument with that. That said, there are plenty of highly educated theists, so I don't there is much evidence that being highly educated will lead to people rejecting their religious beliefs. — Janus

More educated in how to prevent the more nasty affects religion can have on a person individually and on the society you are trying to exist within, as a whole. I have never suggested that there are no good people who are religious. I do however, believe personally, that theism produces a net loss for the human race. I want to bring the detailed evidence available for such a claim to the top 5 of the list of what global humanity is discussing.

There is an ever growing list of 'educated' theists rejecting their religious beliefs. How do you account for such current examples as Bart Ehrman and so many others. I don't want to type a long list of current names, but I will if you need me to. There is even lists on wiki, such as 'converts to non-theism.'

I think that it's valid to state that it does not definitively follow, that anti-theism is as bad as theism.
— universeness

Insofar as either stance dictates to others, or indoctrinates them, as to what they should believe, they are as bad as each other. — Janus

Imho, @180 Proof has destroyed this argument. It is very very possible that the 'anti' position can absolutely be the better position for the stakeholders involved. The examples he gave were too strong to be denied, if you are a decent human being. Being an anti-fascist is better than being a fascist. Do you agree? I assume the only people who might disagree would be fascists!
So anti-theism 'could' be a better position than theism but! Those people like me, who suggest it is, do have to convince others by empirical evidence. That is the 'fanatical,' :roll: suggestion I am trying to make, on threads and sites such as this one. I further accept that you are of the opinion that I am having very little success in my efforts against theism, religion and theosophism.
You will not be surprised that I disagree with your assessment.
Are you claiming that you never try to 'dictate' to any other human, that they have a belief, that you are convinced they need to stop believing?
What if they believe that white people are superior to black people or vice versa?

What about peanut butter? Or electric cars? Or Hemingway? May one judge them according to one's inclination? Where there is no authority, or set criteria, how can there be dogma? — Vera Mont

Of course, Dogs like dog food, but it's not a dogma, because if you don't like dog food, no dog will argue with you. But the position here is that religion is evil, not that someone personally would rather be without it, but help yourself if it floats your boat. If there were no authority being asserted, there would be no atheist dogma being exhibited and the thread would have been quite short. But the authority of science and of rationality is very much being claimed and asserted against any form of religious talk, even and especially talk that embraces metaphorical meaning.

Logic is designed to be context independent, that's the beauty of it. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was please that you like my previous post. I have to say, you have a way of putting things that I simply cannot help responding to. And it seems, we are capable of conducting a dialogue. It's not every day that one finds that.

To the quotation:- Well, yes. But then, it is a context, if a special one. I don't want to get trapped into defending my use of "valid" - which, by the way, has uses in many context apart from logic. I was trying to say that not every madcap idea counts as an interpretation. There are limits. The text is flexible, but only up to a point.

As to your primary and secondary context, I think we need a few more. The author's environment, social, physical, intellectual, etc. is certainly one context. The readers' environment is another one, and of course that may break down into a number of sub-contexts; it may overlap, to a greater or lesser extent with the author's environment. Finally, there are the multifarious contexts of posterity. This is relevant because when the text is read in a different context different questions, issues, priorities may come up and lead to a need for interpretations that go way beyond anything the author could have meant or thought. But still, it is not the case that anything goes.

But the position here is that religion is evil, — unenlightened

That's a widely-held opinion, very much akin to witchcraft is evil. But I've never heard an atheist leader write into law: "Thou shalt not suffer a religionist to live. "

If there were no authority being asserted, there would be no atheist dogma being exhibited — unenlightened

Could you cite the constituted authority which determines atheist policy?

What do you feel? Do you feel rational? It appears you are incredulous that I even mean what I say. But perhaps you can tell me the rationale of love? I would be most interested... — unenlightened

It would be better if you attempted to answer the questions you were asked before asking your own questions. I will be more balanced, and answer your questions first, before repeating mine.
I feel a myriad of emotions, instincts, wants, needs, preferences etc. Some seem very rational at the moment I cognise them, such as 'I feel hungry, so get food!' Some feel irrational, such as, I am really attracted to that 32 year old, very pretty, rich, female pop star. I wonder if she would go on a date with me if I contacted her and asked. That is something that I would consider an irrational thought. So, I experience rational and irrational thoughts. I tend to act on the rational ones and rarely act on the irrational ones unless the circumstances involved, offers very little choice.
The basis of love imo, comes from the natural imperative to continue our species, nurture our children co-operate closely with others, as a motivational aid to help generate cause, purpose, and meaning in our lives
I don't value love above all else in any way whatsoever.
I think only species like humans, who live very short lives, could believe that love is most important of all.
I do think however that love is a very powerful/dangerous/wonderful human emotion. That's my rationale of love. Now I have answered your questions perhaps you could attempt to answer mine.

I repeat:

Do you really feel like that? — universeness

If you truly believe 'caring is not rational,' then how would you ever be capable of experiencing love? — universeness

If you have reasons to love someone, you don't love them — Zizek

Are you looking for the opinion of others regarding this quote, before you offer your own?
Is another way of putting this:
If you love someone then you must have no reasons to!

I once knew someone who was passionate about the Enlightenment. Unfortunately, he took this to mean that when someone disagreed with his argument, he should repeat the argument. He was perfectly patient, never dogmatic, but never responded properly. He was dogmatic, but not offensive - just boring. — Ludwig V

That's hillariously in character -- Disagree with me? Why, you must not understand! :D

That is not an argument. I am not interested in who is eviler than whom, because it is not relevant, nor is who by and large has had the political power historically.

Do you really feel like that? — universeness

It's a foolish question to my mind because rationality is about reasoning verbally mathematically and conceptually in a logical way. Feelings are an attitude one has to things. So to feel hungry is to want some food. there is no argument that convinces someone to be hungry, any more than there is an argument that convinces it to rain. Loving is commonplace and normal for humans; it's a feeling that comes over one as a response to another. But your rationalising of your response to these feelings makes no sense to me. They are your thoughts about your feelings not any reason for having them.

love is a very powerful/dangerous/wonderful human emotion. That's my rationale of love. — universeness

That's not a rationale, that is a conflicted feeling about your feelings.

So yes, love is an emotion, and does not arise out of arguments and measurement of ratios. There is no reason to care but we do, there is no reason to love, but we do. That it promotes the survival of the species is perhaps why such attitudes have evolved in us; but that could only be the cause, not a reason. What you are calling rational and irrational feelings are distinguishing feelings you are happy to try and fulfil, from those you prefer to suppress.

If you truly believe 'caring is not rational,' then how would you ever be capable of experiencing love? — universeness

Having the feelings I have is no effort at all for me, I love my wife and my children unconditionally or a Zizek says, 'for no reason' - unreasonably. And when one of them screams at me and rushes off slamming the door, it hurts, and I still love them. And there is no reason why.

That is not an argument. I am not interested in who is eviler than whom, because it is not relevant, nor is who by and large has had the political power historically. — unenlightened

Maybe none of that is at issue for you. And that's fine. However, nor was it my argument.

That's a widely-held opinion, very much akin to witchcraft is evil.
But I've never heard an atheist leader write into law: "Thou shalt not suffer a religionist to live. — Vera Mont

You see, it wasn't a question of which is more evil, religion or witchcraft.
I was contrasting opinion with dogma.

OED: "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

I also have yet to see you make the case for a reaction causing an action.

Insofar as either stance dictates to others, or indoctrinates them, as to what they should believe, they are as bad as each other. — Janus

The operative word there appears to be : insofar
which makes the equation
theist dogma = atheist dogma
a damned lopsided one.

But your rationalising of your response to these feelings makes no sense to me. They are your thoughts about your feelings not any reason for having them. — unenlightened

love is a very powerful/dangerous/wonderful human emotion. That's my rationale of love.
— universeness

That's not a rationale, that is a conflicted feeling about your feelings. — unenlightened

The basis of love imo, comes from the natural imperative to continue our species, nurture our children co-operate closely with others, as a motivational aid to help generate cause, purpose, and meaning in our lives — universeness

Why did you choose to ignore this part of my rationale for the emotion of human love? Is it because that part was obviously nothing to do with 'feelings about my feelings,' The quote you did use is also not feelings about my feelings, it's love as I have observed it and interpreted it, affecting others, and myself, and it is based on what others have said to me, regarding the various experiences they have had with their 'other half.'

There is no reason to care but we do, there is no reason to love, but we do. That it promotes the survival of the species is perhaps why such attitudes have evolved in us; but that could only be the cause, not a reason. — unenlightened

You are soooo far of the mark with this! If you show you care and you are capable of love then there is more chance of you receiving such in return. People in human communities who do not do so, are considered less sociable and less able to be a useful partner, such people are often ostracised and that can mean there is less chance of them surviving or reproducing.
This happens all over the animal kingdom as well.
There are very clear reasons for caring and loving for pack/social creatures such as humans, as such enhances the possibility that cooperation and collaboration between individuals, will be successful.

Having the feelings I have is no effort at all for me, I love my wife and my children unconditionally or a Zizek says, 'for no reason' - unreasonably. And when one of them screams at me and rushes off slamming the door, it hurts, and I still love them. And there is no reason why. — unenlightened

So you are able to act like most jungle based species then. Good for you. You contradict yourself. There is no reason to love but we love anyway merely means that the nurturing mother or father instinct is the 'natural' or 'normal' state in most humans. Such are reasons why you love your spouse and your offspring. The Zizek quote is nonsense imo. The difference between a reason to love and that which causes you to love is too small to be of any significance at all, imo.

Why did you choose to ignore this part of my rationale for the emotion of human love? — universeness

Because saying something is natural is simply saying it is; life evolves so as to survive but for what reason does it survive? No reason, it just does. Reasoning is something people can do but often don't. it is a way of thinking dispassionately Ie without passion. One brackets off how one feels, what one wants and so on and leaves them out of account in order to be dispassionate and thus rational.

People in human communities who do not do so, are considered less sociable and less able to be a useful partner, such people are often ostracised and that can mean there is less chance of them surviving or reproducing.
This happens all over the animal kingdom as well. — universeness

And for what reason does one want to survive and reproduce etc? For no reason except one happens to be made that way by the blind watchmaker, who as you know does not care about anything.

But this is boring now, I'll leave it there and stand with idiot Zizek in opposition to your reasonable love which is what we used to call 'cupboard love' - the love of personal advantage.

The difference between a reason to love and that which causes you to love is too small to be of any significance at all, imo. — universeness

There may also be room, in the questions about love, for "Would you love any woman who was given to you in an arranged marriage (yes, they are real) exactly the same way as any other - for no reason, not even the biological reason that she's the legitimate mother of your genetic offspring?"
Or is there, perhaps, one you chose because you preferred her to the available others?

Having the feelings I have is no effort at all for me, I love my wife and my children unconditionally or a Zizek says, 'for no reason' - unreasonably. And when one of them screams at me and rushes off slamming the door, it hurts, and I still love them. And there is no reason why. — unenlightened

I have to I am sympathetic to this view. Love and reason do seem unconnected to me too. However to say categorically there is no reason may be pushing things. Could there not be reasons we are unaware of, or dimly ware of? We are attracted to people for reasons that are, possibly, hard wired in us. We go for certain types of people or genders and we are attracted to certain types of appearances, personalities and behaviors. It isn't a rational process, I agree, but there are still reasons. I am attracted to generosity and kindness and intelligence and humor. If the people I am attracted to hang around long enough, I may also grow to love them.

I am interested in you critiquing reason several times on this thread. Do I take it you believe the enlightenment project was largely a failure and that reason (which became a new god) has acquired a poisonous dimension under secular materialistic culture?

Could there not be reasons we are unaware of, or dimly ware of? We are attracted to people for reasons that are, possibly, hard wired in us. We go for certain types of people or genders and we are attracted to certain types of appearances, — Tom Storm

I like reason, and I use it. It keeps our thinking straight. What you say about unconscious desires, hard wired or not, may very well be true. but to call that a function of reason is to equivocate rather badly. Having a fetish for large breasts may be hard-wired by natural selection to favour generous feeders, or it may be an internet induced perversion of ordinary male desire, or just a random fixation, but what it most certainly is not is the result of conscious reasoning from premises to conclusion – nothing like.
And this is the kind of reasoning that the religious are being accused of not following. I think they are still mostly just about capable of eating when hungry, despite the impediment of faith, as can other non-reasoning beings like frogs and horses.

But this is boring now, I'll leave it there and stand with idiot Zizek in opposition to your reasonable love which is what we used to call 'cupboard love' - the love of personal advantage. — unenlightened

I agree, I am bored to.

I have a friend who has been a friend for most of my life. He had an arranged marriage and has two sons from that marriage. Over the years he has explained to me all the different financial and 'family connections,' established as a result, that allowed various business ventures to go ahead, that resulted in more prosperity for all the family groups involved.
He has had affairs and I think he always will. My friend is not really religious, but he does what he has to do to 'fit in' with what's expected under the muslim rules. He will never leave his wife, as the consequences would be too much for him and his boys. His 5 brothers and two sisters all had arranged marriages and the family cooperations, are well engrained and very strong.
I don't know if he has ever really loved his wife. I could never be a part of such a system, but then, I was of course, not born into it.

I personally think that I could pick any city in the world at random or even most large towns and I could find a woman there that I could fall in love with, for all the usual reasons people do.
Friendship, love, loyalty, responsibility etc are all variations on a theme imo.
Love can result in some of the best moments in your life and some of the worst, but it's not anything near to the all powerful force that many claim it is, imo. It grows or arrives and it leaves and dies.
I always kinda liked the old Glasgow idiom, I used to hear all the adults say when I was young
'when trouble comes in, through yer door, love leaves the hoose, right oot the windae.'
As I already posted, the Zizek quote does not resonate with me at all, I think it's BS.

Being an anti-fascist is better than being a fascist. Do you agree? — universeness

I already pointed out that 180s argument, by implication, equates fascism with theism, and by extension anti-fascism with anti-theism., and he claimed I was changing the subject. It is not a given that theism, per se, is an evil, whereas it is a given that fascism is. In any case why are you talking about fascism when the subject is theism? It is not me who is changing the subject.

The operative word there appears to be : insofar
which makes the equation
theist dogma = atheist dogma
a damned lopsided one. — Vera Mont

Theist dogma has been around longer than atheist dogma, and has, of course, historically done more harm. Perhaps it is still doing more harm today, since atheist dogma is not institutionalized like theist dogma is. The Catholic and other churches apparently have covered up an endemic practice of pedophilia, and that is a horrible practice that should be condemned. But I don't see that as a reason to condemn the catholic church as a whole, and certainly not theism as a whole.

It's a very complicated and nuanced issue and I don't believe it is possible to accurately measure the current net harm of theism vs atheism. As an atheist myself, my main point is that people should be allowed to make up their own minds about what they believe, so I think, for example, that children should not be indoctrinated either way, although it is inevitable that they will be influenced by their parents. I actually think it should be illegal for parents to force children to go, or not go, to church, although of course that would be a hard law to enforce adequately.

Human life is messy and will remain so into the future I believe. I just don't see religion as a major part of the huge suite of problems humanity currently faces.

The rise of religious nationalist movements in countries where poverty is rampant is no surprise given the human propensity under adversity to turn to religion. The only thing that could go towards solving this problem that I can think of would be increased general prosperity and given that that is a pipe dream in a world of rapidly diminishing resources and growing population, there would not seem to be much that militant atheism could contribute to the situation.

I actually think there is little point to this whole subject, at best it is a diversion from the really pressing issues, and at worst it contributes to divisions that are already growing everywhere due to the inevitably increasing hardships humanity is facing..

I actually think there is little point to this whole subject, at best it is a diversion from the really pressing issues, — Janus

That's true, but it appears to have become part of - indeed has insinuated itself to the very center - of the pressing issues.

and at worst it contributes to divisions that are already growing everywhere due to the inevitably increasing hardships humanity is facing.. — Janus

And your suggestion as to how to diminish the division is to shut down opposition to rising militant religiosity?

If you have reasons to love someone, you don't love them — Zizek

Are you looking for the opinion of others regarding this quote, before you offer your own?
Is another way of putting this:
If you love someone then you must have no reasons to! — universeness

Well, it seemed relevant to your debate with unenlightened, and I agree with it.

Of course, maybe you can come up with reasons if you think about it, and this doesn’t necessarily negate the love. So, sure, it might be an exaggeration…

But only exaggeration is true. — Adorno

What this means is that sometimes you have to exaggerate to speak the truth. It’s a way of uncovering the essence of an object by pushing against the limitations of reason. Or, it’s a way of cutting through the bullshit, directing your thought in a motivated way that has no time for trivial counterexamples. A dangerous game, but probably important to insight in general.

But it could also be interpreted not as an exaggeration. What is it to “have reasons”? If it’s to have arrived at the love through ratiocination, or if it means that reasons are somehow constitutive of it, or are the motivation for it, then the statement is accurate. I don’t decide to love someone based on a deduction.

So under that interpretation, giving or thinking of reasons post hoc is not what “having reasons” means.

Neither does it mean the causes of your love. An omniscient psychologist’s discovery of the objective “reasons” that you love a person—which would mean the causes of your love—is not what is being discussed. What it’s about is having reasons of your own, as justification for your feeling.

It’s a rich insight (though hardly an original one), so try to understand before rejecting. Be curious.

And your suggestion as to how to diminish the division is to shut down opposition to rising militant religiosity? — Vera Mont

No, I think rising miltitant ideology in any form should be opposed.

But it could also be interpreted not as an exaggeration. What is it to “have reasons”? If it’s to have arrived at the love through ratiocination, or if it means that reasons are somehow constitutive of it, or are the motivation for it, then the statement is accurate. I don’t decide to love someone based on a deduction.

So under that interpretation, giving or thinking of reasons post hoc is not what “having reasons” means.

Neither does it mean the causes of your love. An omniscient psychologist’s discovery of the objective reasons that you love a person—the causes of your love—is not what is being discussed. What it’s about is having reasons of your own, as justification for your feeling.

It’s a rich insight (though hardly an original one), so try to understand before rejecting. Be curious. — Jamal

I think that's a useful frame and it is insightful. I've generally held that most of the things I am passionate about did not come about through reasoning - music, art, books, films, people. Much of my reasoning about things is post hoc - I'm not sure if these are 'justifications', since I feel they are true to or integrated with my thinking and beliefs. I am fairly sure in life we have emotional impulses (inclinations/interests) and we fill these in with reasoning after the fact. My wording is a bit clumsy, but you know what I mean?

I am fairly sure in life we have emotional impulses (inclinations/interests) and we fill these in with reasoning after the fact. My wording is a bit clumsy, but you know what I mean? — Tom Storm

This is not addressed to me, but I think I know what you mean, and I agree.

Absolutely. And this opens up a related can of worms. It turns out that there is no neat separation of reason and emotion, that in fact reason is not even reasonable without emotional motivation and guidance. This is what Antonio Damasio‘s book Descartes’ Error is about.

Cool. It's a theme I've been thinking about a lot since I joined this site.

Nice. Yes, I can see how this might get messy.