John Page

Hey, I was the first one to use the term psychosis, so your "beforehand" doesn't apply. Let's look at some more definitions of psychosis, shall we, first from a medical dictionary:

Here from another encyclopedia:
Here from a Canadian Early Psychosis program endorsed by the Alberta Mental Health Board:
A psychosis is a condition and you seem to be confusing this with the cause of the condition. When the cause of that condition is abnormal the condition is the result of a disease. I looked at some DSM-IV criteria. Maybe I misunderstand but the best I can make out is that you're claiming all psychoses result from the "genuine medical definition" of psychotic diseases - not my claim at all!

Let me move away from the topic of psychosis and get back to the real issue. Perhaps you would do me the kindness of answering the following:

Q1. Do you agree that belief in god through the power of religions has caused mass delusions?
Q2. Do you agree that the power of religion was a key factor in enabling the 911 pilots to commit suicide, and that their resulting mental condition had reached to point of a medical disorder?

Cheers!

John Page

I agree with your stated conclusion above, but this is not exactly what you said! You said (my emphasis) "This is a conclusion that I actually have reached myself; however, a very necessary collary is that society needs a broadly humanist, secular, lawful and tolerant framework in which the more acceptable strands can exist together in competition."

My quibble was with the needs you identified, which seem to be subjective and self-serving IMO, and the absence of criteria to determine acceptable. My resulting sarcastic response "Needs? Acceptable? It may also be considered rational to completely annihilate a competing civilization. Only, of course, in the interests of long term prosperity, peace, love, blah blah blah. " poked at these issues.

My prescriptiveness? In the above quote of my post there is a question and an observation, how is that prescriptive?

Did you really read my website, particularly where I say as to my Personal Agenda "It is not my purpose to persuade the reader that the ideas of the author are correct, true, or in any way authoritative. Nor is it the purpose to persuade the reader that what is written here is good or bad. It is my hope that this site will stimulate readers to have their own thoughts and ways of understanding their thoughts, experiences and environment."?

Did you take care to read the Summary page where I write "I ask that you put aside your own beliefs and join me for a while in having none. This is the first step to greater knowledge and an understanding of how your beliefs control and contain you. If I have one dogma, it is my dogma against dogmatism!"

IMO we are likely trying to "fight the same battle". While humanists may have had some success and the name "humanist" is very appealing such success is very limited. I genuinely have trouble understanding how the framework you propose is really going to make a substantial difference..... hell, if I were convinced as to the secular humanist framework I'd be in there!

Maybe Thrasymachus was on the right track - "Might is Right", if so this makes moral values and philosophies of ethics disposable. If ethics are disposbale, we need a framework that allows ethics to float according to what works. That is more or less what I propose on my web site, here's the link in case you missed it <a href="http://www.reconciliationism.org/why_a_new_creed.htm" target="_blank">Why a New Creed?</a>

So, I'm not a troll. I hope you're not an orc.

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Laurentius

Ender

AVE


To my embarrassment, I’ll have to admit that my readings have been quite random on the subject. I have the habit of rushing into a topic, reading as much as possible of it, retaining the most striking ideas (from my perspective) and forgetting both the book and the author.

Allow me some time for research. It’ll take a while since I’m busier than Bush.


AVE


[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

Gurdur

I've been busy with exciting things, but I owe you perhaps one last reply, John Page:

My point was the lack of overall religion, and therefore the greater significance of other ideologies - such as Han-centrism and Confucianism or Legalism in various forms - in the formation of Chinese civilization, in contradiction of your argument religion is necessary for greater-than-tribal civilizations (I paraphrase).
I believe my point still stands.

Ah, but in fact it did survive for two generations. My point again as against your claim.
Your point about sustainability is a valid one, but I believe I could come up with a reasonable argument as to why it still doesn't support your claim.
In evidence, I will cite Poland where religious membership and church attendence has actually declined since the democratic 'revolution', or the Czech Republic.

I dunno; I live in a democracy, not a meritocracy - or would you disagree ?

Yes, I do. I waas wrong to ascribe a lack of knowledge to you; however, my substantive criticisms of your claim still stand.

Which is why I present my own conclusions tentively and with as much evidence as possible in the thread I cited above

You didn't see a response since I felt there was more than enough info in the thread I cited above.

Let me state it in very short details:

1648 was where humanism triumphed over religious zealotry. In Germany you will find many Simultankirchen, churches where both Protestants and Catholics worship - initially after being forced to, rather than being allowed to war against each other.
I see this as a secular or semi-demi-secular response.
I also see it as a model of how to tackle religious-caused conflicts (in broad outline, rather than specific answer to be copied).

You dig?

The USA constitutional seperation of church and state is just such another modal answer, and a semi-demi-secular response, IMHO.


You didn't take my beforehand into account.
Does it surprise you that I might not feel like continuing a discussion if my remarks are simply ignored, rather than addressed ?

Nope. *sigh* Where do I allegedly confuse it with the cause ?

You misunderstand.
I am aware of popular definitions of psychosis.
I consider them to be so inexact as to often be worthless.
Therefore if religion is claimed to be a psychosis - as you did - then I insist on a proper scientific / medical definition of psychosis (DSM-IV) for any resultant discussion.
I refuse to discuss on the basis of the popular definitions, or idiosyncratic ones.
Clear?

Nothing to do with this thread, and no, I'm not going to answer.

Tsk. Either one has a concept of "needs", accepted pro tem in discussion, or one can totally throw the concept of "needs" out the window.
I see no reason for the 2nd option.
You dig ?

And I state IMHO you are still trying to be prescriptive, even if in a laid-back way.
So ?
I don't argue with presriptiveness per se, I look at the bases on which it is predicated, and its consequences.

Persoanlly I'm not totally convinced as to the overall 'humanist framework', but I regard it as the best possible answer.

This is of course a sophist argument, and one I personally see no value in whatsoever.

Ethics are subjective in the end, which doens't stop them from being intersubjective, a practical substitute for an impossible objectivity.#

As to saying "What works, works", this is a circular argument, not a valid ethical base, IMHO.

Dunno yet. If I get one more remark such as the one I objected to above about secular humanists that simply doesn't apply to me, while also appearing to be there simply to inflame, I'll conclude the opposite.
Clear?

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Laurentius

Gurdur

AVE


My objection refers to the fact that simply saying that “We need to make this life into the best one that we can” is not clear enough to support any specific position. Both Rand and Marx as well as Nietzsche would agree with it, and they’re so different from each other.

A Nihilist may even say that life is neither precious nor worthless since there isn’t any intrinsic value in anything.

My preoccupation was to find a way in which atheism would logically lead to humanism; I don’t know if I managed to sound convincing enough in my other posts.


AVE

Gurdur

Whoops, it's all clear now, sorry to have misunderstood; I probably didn't read carefully enough at the beginning.

IMHO there is no logical development from atheism to humanism; in fact, IMHO they occupy different philosophical catgeories.

Phaedrus and Ender would probably disagree with me (&lt;* looks over shoulder nervously *&gt;, but I see atheism as being essentially an epistemological result, while humanism would be a value result.

Phaedrus and Ender might say that epistemology and values can't be seperated so easily, so it's really only my poor opinion, and may only apply to my own brand of hard-line atheism anyway.

However, there are several other reasons why I see humanism not proceeding directly and logically from atheism - two of those reasons being,
1) Not all atheists are humanists
2) Atheism can just as easily lead to moral nihilism (which of course is also true of religion).

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Laurentius

snatchbalance

AVE


The logic I was presenting there did not belong to me; it was the brief presentation of what I’ve seen in the position of some atheists.

I understand - keep up the good work, guys, on the political field. But, as I’ve already pointed out, on his philosophical page the thinker ought to put up a theoretical construct.


AVE

Ender

I wanted to see which leading figure's program you were stoked on. What are the most "striking ideas," pray tell?

I'll stick around.

~WiGGiN~

Ender

Hello Gurdur- how are them hanging fellah?

Fair enough. Nevertheless, there are several, comprehensive programs that illustrate how such a process is possible: from an epistemological stance (say all knowledge comes from experience or the mind imposes limits upon reality) to an ethical one (man is the measure of all things or is the universal rational subject). How about a phenomenological development from humanism to atheism? A psychological analysis of the ego to an epistemological judgment of divine entities?

If this isn’t the biggest bait I’ve ever seen...

how about these alternative approaches: atheism as a lack of belief in a supernatural being/divine entity may not be fundamentally an epistemic position, OR humanism could be a derivative of a certain epistemological bias (what is considered as sufficient grounds for value judgment).

Perhaps this is a discussion of truth, of knowledge, of sufficient reason or any of those meta-philosophical areas.

quick questions: conversely, are all Humanists necessarily atheists? isn't it possible to equate life with affirmation and perceive humanism as a negative "leveling off" of the masses and judge it a nihilistic position or grounded in nihilism...

~WiGGiN~

Gurdur

You wouldn't believe the strange things happening today here.

Indeed, all these are possible but not necessarily consequences.

Weeeeeelllll, it was both a bait and a genuine worry about stepping onto this turf.

Quite possible, agreed, which is why I said all my comments may only pertain to my own brand of atheism.

And THIS would be a very intersting approach, and may even satisfy Laurentius.
Please expand if you would.

No.

yes
Only if given certain definitions of "humanism", but not with others.

Given that I see social epistemology as being incredibly important to intersubjectivity of any kind, then I am satisfied that my own brand of humanism could easily withstand that attack.
And I've put that into practice in the Political Forum here on many occasions.