Celsus

Hi scigirl

I presume dk is trying to say that rights are not sufficient as a basis of morality. Which is also my point. However, s/he then goes on to alluding the Bible should be used, and it's a fairly simple task in showing him/her that the Bible is really bad, both in establishing rights (it doesn't - the UN DoHR is better) and in providing a framework for morality (it does, but it's not a very good one - rationality does better).
My stupid question: Why doesn't dk want to reply to me?

Joel

dk

dk: The Bible says in John 8:32, “....the truth shall make you free.” I don’t want to drag the Bible into this discussion, except to say the OT became the NT, and the NT renders unto Caesar those things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are God’s. I come from a school that subscribes to both faith and reason held in tension, not contempt. What the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is today doesn’t interest me so much, what it becomes in the future concerns me a lot.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism share the same root that has become an essential aspect of Western Civilization. From the perspective of Human Law, the source of human rights follows from the 10 Commandments, 12 Tablets of Rome, Greek City/States, Justinian Code, Magna Carte and U.S. Declaration of Independents. Modern hawks, doves, tyrants and demagogues can justify war and human slaughter with mind numbing rationalizations. I find war by and large unpersuasive, but recognize the horrors of war bring clarity to the Truth, and I do find Truth persuasive. I submit governments and nations don’t set people free, the truth makes people free. In a democratic republic, the lengths to which opinion makers, bureaucrats, courts and elected officials go to distance themselves from truth determines whether the law becomes a weapon or a tutor. But make no mistake, in any case the law whether moral, secular, humane or scientific regulates conduct from authority with power. My liberty ends where the freedom of others begins, so even the deontological most punitive laws of the OT protect the rights of people, and gave meaning to what people suffer. What does it mean? Answer: It means Israel not only survived but prospered across the millennium throughout the entire world under the protection of the Law. I submit what the Jews endured and overcame through their faith has become the basis of human dignity that inspired the concept of IHR originate.

dk: The suffix “ism” means a particular cause, doctrine or theory. The “isms” I mentioned were drawn from the well of the rational philosophies in the 19th Century. The humanities of the13th Century became humanism in the 17th Century. Humanism arose in response to the Schoolmen of the 13th Century. The rise of humanities in the 14th thru 16th Centuries promoted personal perfection through a return to the classics of culture, art and science, rather than religion. I like the humanities, but have found people thirst for spiritual fulfillment as well. Where people tend to fight over property, even to become property themselves, spiritual things endure to form a more perfect union between people. The rational philosophies of the 17th and 18th Centuries railed against Christianity as the primary cause of human error.

I think the plethora of “isms” that arose out of the 1800s, especially nationalism, were a human response to the void created by a world conscribed to a material image. In the 20th Century humanism became secularized and hostile to a spiritual reality. John Holyoake coined term around 1850 to dogmatism the proposition, “natural morality apart from atheism, theism, and the Bible are sufficient to govern human conduct”. We seem to agree secularism, whether materialistic, scientific or humanistic contains inadequacies. I got lost when went off ranting about the Dark Ages. My point is that what appears to be a practical solution for the problems of the day, often becomes tomorrow’s nightmare. In 1914 imperialism seemed a good idea to the nations of Europe (well France and England agreed it was a good idea for them, but a bad idea for Austria and Prussia), in the 1920s Sovietism seemed a good alternative to the carnage of WWI. in 1928 capitalism seemed a great idea to Wall Street, in 1933 the national socialist party (NAZIS) seemed a great idea to humiliated Germans,,,, and so forth and so on.


dk: I take issue with both definitions. What you describe as the “toughest scrutiny”, in reality becomes a conundrum of incomprehensible doctrines enforced on the merits of the “biggest stick” promulgated by 1st rate demagogues, 2nd rate bureaucrats and 3rd rate intellectuals. Secularism in all its forms (material, humanistic and scientific) banishes from the public square the intangibles essential to union of purpose and social intercourse. What remains becomes an insatiable appetite for a finite number of goods. The result is an escalating sense of cynicism, greed and ill will that that sets people at one another’s throats.

I think its fair to say secularists dismiss religious forms as transcendental moonshine, only to replace the “opiate of the masses” with mind candy, happy pills, and broken promises. If purely materialistic, humanistic and scientistic doctrines are superior then its difficult to explain the crimes communism committed in the name of scientific socialism and scientific history. “It (communism) claimed the lives of an estimated 100 million men, women, and children, brutalized tens of millions more, and ruined the lives of countless others. The Communist record offers the most colossal case of political carnage in history,” writes Martin Malia in the foreword of The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press, 1999); it is a “tragedy of planetary dimensions.” ----- Remembering Communism and Counting the Victims Even today there are many intellectuals that rationalize and romanticize about command style communism as if it were a noble social experiment that got a bad rap from the neo-conservative bourgeoisie. I don’t mean to bang on communists unfairly, obviously laissez-faire capitalists, robber barons and multi-national corporations have committed their share of crimes against humanity. The plethora of rationalizations presented by secular historians from every material perspective undermines any claim of “tough scrutiny”. Not the least of which is the widening chasm of economic, educational and social disparity that haunts the USA on the heels of the Great Society. Reason alone can explain what made the Epoch Greek Tragedies so epoch and tragic, but for a resolution to the tragedy that accompanies material forms people are forced to look beyond themselves for answers.

dk: Material, scientific and secular humanism hangs on the precipice “all real things contain a rational explanation of a world without God”. The rational philosophies tether the human spirit to material progress. The gospel of progress can only degenerate into a psychology of deprivation for control over the finite available resources. In purely rational terms people negotiated progress at their neighbors expense. In plain common sense language when scientific progress outpaces ethical and moral development people perfect themselves at the expense of neighbor. To the extent people employ technology as a crutch to circumvent ethics and morals people become vicious. The more vicious people become the more police, security, surveillance and courts must be deployed for mutual protection. The sheer weight of the evolving bureaucracy breaks the backs of productive people, and in the end the police, courts and security forces become the fox guarding the hen house. It’s a laugher.

dk: You were doing pretty well at avoiding ad hominem attacks until the last comment. Without God all things become common commodities negotiable at the sacred alter of progress. I submit secularism in any pure form closes people to reason one negotiation at a time.

scigirl

Yes, heaven forbid you bring the Bible into a discussion titled UN Code versus the Bible.

So does that mean the UN code wins by default?

scigirl

dk

Lets be clear, I said, "I don’t want to drag the Bible into this discussion, except to say the OT became the NT, and the NT renders unto Caesar those things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are God’s".

Quoting someone out of context, is pretext. I thought you were brighter than that.

dk

Yes, that's correct Joel, in fact I'll go even further. Human Law whether religious, moral or scientific as a practical matter, makes breaking the Law liberating. In this sense the Law throws the baby out with bath water, and destroys the wheat and chaff. The Pauline epistles talk extensively about the problems the law creates. So the problem is how do people get out from under the law, not how the law can make people more perfect and more powerful.

Celsus

Hi dk,

Thanks for the reply. To cut things short, the UN DoHR does not go back to the Bible. Christians like to claim that Western civilisation is based on the Judeo-Christian ethics. They would have been right until the Enlightenment. After that, it is non sequitur.
Please name this root that became "an essential aspect of Western civilisation". If not, go to the Church-State Separation forum and see whether your assertions are correct. If a law was common and accepted, that was because the rationality guiding it was fundamentally sound. We'll use the 10 Commandments as an example since you brought it up:

The whole world bar a few fundamentalists have realised the irrationality and silliness of the first, second, third and fourth commandments. We've also realised that the fifth, seventh, ninth and tenth commandments are useless as commandments, but if they are to be any good, they must be maintained out of integrity and free will, and there are exceptions to the "rule". That leaves us with the sixth (thou shall not kill) and eighth commandments (thou shall not steal). Both of these are also generally correct, even as hypocritical Christian seek the death penalty and funding for faith-based initiatives.

I think you are reading far too much into everyone's posts, btw.
Here's another example of you conflating what I am saying with your perceptions about my ideas. Firstly, you are confusing the non-ideal world with secular method. I'm not saying there will be no problems. I'm saying this is the best method of tackling them. Secondly, by taking issue with my definitions, it is clear you wish to construct strawmen. This is what we are comparing: secular processes of deriving morality vs. theistic declarations of morality. In that sense, the basic definition of "secular" is appropriate, as is the basic propositions of theist morality. Thirdly, your non sequitur that somehow a materialist philosophy results in base materialism is both wrong and untrue. Intangibles are either those which have yet to be explained, or those that cannot be explained. Morality, as one of these intangibles, can be derived, and an aversion to greed (not taking more than your own share) as the outcome of a rational process rather than a declaration from up above is far superior to asking gods for your rules. Secular morality is self-correcting. Theist morality is a once and for all proclamation, never to be questioned.
Again you are a bit too eager with your straw men, and this is almost offensive. You are confusing political problems with secular method. How do you know that it's not advisable to put your hand in a fire? Either you've burnt yourself before, seen someone else do it, or have understood the cause-and-effect processes involved. Not because God says "Don't put your hands in fires". That is what the rational secular method is about. The history of communism can be blamed on many different things, the chief one being their closed worldview. As Robert Park warns in Voodoo Science, surrounding yourself with yes-men is dangerous, and can result in gross irrationality. You need to learn how to construct a proper argument rather than indulging in countless unsubstantiated non sequiturs. Like what the hell does Greek Epic (not Epoch) tragedy have anything to do with the argument?
More non sequiturs. This is getting tiring. How does the first sentence in the paragraph lead to the second? Where is the evidence that supports leading from one sentence to the next. Repeat for each sentence in the paragraph.
I stand corrected. You are neither ignorant nor wilfully dishonest. Rather, after that last post, it's quite clear that you haven't got a clue about how to construct an argument (see below for a clue).

Joel

P.S. Clue: Make sure the your sentences follow logically on from the first. i.e. "Without God" what happens? Does it follow that "all things become commodities"? Where is your evidence for this? Where does the notion of "sacred alter [sic] of progress" come from? Your own perception of humanists, or from humanists? What evidence do you have to support this? Second sentence: "secularism in any pure form" - what does that mean? Is this your own straw man or a real definition? "Closes people to reason" - how, why, when, where? Have you been reading any of the posts in this thread? etc.

P.P.S. After your last reply to me, may I ask, have you met Amos? You two will get along just fine. I don't debate with him because he has exactly the same knack at pulling non sequiturs out of a hat as you do. But at least he's fun to read.

dk

Hey Joel,
I’m going to break my response up. You probably won’t want to respond to some shoots. I agree aspects of our discussion veered off-topic on tangents.

dk: Really, well here’s a exerpt from a 1997 Article published in the University of Chicago Law Review 64 (1997) 1097-1116 The Justinian Code (Modern Roman Law) was part of the Byzantine Empire, which was a Christian Theocracy. I’m not so naive to suggest an excerpt from a prestigious secular law review proves anything, but it does show the call of “non-sequitur” was unsubstantial, unreasonably and narrow. On your behalf, it was I that polarized the discussion making an extreme response contextual. If nothing else Celsus, this ought to give you a reason to re-evaluate whatever resource lead you to believe the influence of Judeo Christians ethics ended with the enlightenment. I concede its fair to argue that the influence of Judeo Christians ethics should have ended with the enlightenment, but that would another thread.

Celsus

Hi dk,

What exactly does this have to do with the OP? If you like, this thread might be better moved ot C-SS. In the meantime, the growing rationality that became part of the Enlightenment as was developed in it was not a Judeo-Christian ethic. It is however, the basis of scientific progress, and of methodological naturalism. The belief that humanity could progress was also a product of the Enlightenment, and against Biblical ideas. Remember the fallen nature of mankind and the Tower of Babel?

But anyway, perhaps you should start a separate thread.

Joel

dk

Hi Joel,
2 on n

dk:

• Israel |->Judaism
• Israel |->Christianity
• Israel and Christianity |->Islam
• Israel and Christianity and Islam |->Western Civilization
• All three reference Moses and Abraham as patriarchs.

dk: Appealing the whole world for support calls out the fallacy ad populum.
Let me enumerate the Commandments briefly, people number them differently.

1. ~false gods.
2. ~Lord’s name in vein.
3. Keep holy the Sabbath
4. honor thy parents
5. ~murder
6. ~adultery
7. ~steal
8. ~bear false witness against neighbor
9. ~covet neighbor’s goods
10. ~covet neighbor’s wife.

The first three commandments are concerned with the practice of religion, therefore doesn’t concern government , except where reasonable accommodation respects religious liberty. On the 4th and 6th Commandments, I have my personal thoughts on why secularism (4) protects disobedient children and (6) adulterers, but I think everyone can agree government has a no business raising children or subjugating the nuclear family to economic, military, social or political interests. Commands (9-10) are proactive telling people not to envy the good in the life of your neighbor.

dk: A valid criticism. Whatever Enlightenment was back in the 17-18th Centuries, it has become something else today. My criticisms and rants were meant to attack the unnatural, unbalanced and unreliable doctrines of secularism, and to the extent the UN UDoIR becomes a doctrine of secularism, it becomes increasingly unnatural, unbalanced and unreliable. The Supreme Court first interpreted the US Constitution as a secular document in the mid 20 Century. Clearly the degenerative affect on culture is evident by what passes for art, music, theatre, news and literature.

dk:

1. I have no problem with secular methods, so long as they are appropriately applied to secular problems. We don’t agree on what in the secular domain.
2. There isn’t a Strawman behind every disagreement. Its ok to invent new words, and define them as you please, but you can’t invent new definitions for words that exist. I have a problem with your definition of secularism because an “ism” is a source of dogma and doctrine, not merely ideas. I object to your definition of humanism because there are many definitions, so a particular definition requires context. Humanism started with Dante (13th Century), but today humanism can mean anything from Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn to Bach’s Jonathan Livingston Seagull. My point is that secularism and humanism don’t intersect coherently. I can buy into secular humanism, but not human secularism.
3. If a materialistic philosophy doesn’t reduce to base materialism then its irrational or ideal. In a materialistic philosophy intangibles don’t exist, but there are paradoxes. Don’t believe me look it up.

dk: It isn’t necessarily moral or immoral to burn one’s hand in a fire. I didn’t say faith was superior to reason, rather they existed in tension. If someone dies pulling a child out of burning building, that’s love, not immoral. The topic is UN UDIHR an the 10 Commandments, so anything from Moses & Mt Sinai to the UN recognition of the Nation of Israel might pertain.

dk

The topic is the UN DIoHR and the 10 Commandments. The Justinian Code provides a direct link from the 10 Commandments (Judeo Christian Ethics) to the shape and content of the modern legal system. If we can agree here, then we can move on to discuss how it relates to the UN DIoHR, or if you wish what distinguishes the UN DIoHR from the US Bill of Rights.