The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[Martinus]

Berkut, given that all monotheistic religions ultimately claim that Hashem is unknowable and encompasses all qualities, it is pointless to argue whether they believe in the same deity or not. But then again monotheistic religions are wrong on so many things, it could be the nature of the deity as well.

[DGuller]

How about we agree that God is just not good at communicating with his underlings, and seems too detached to correct misunderstandings when they do pop up?

[Barrister]

To me, the biggest problem with religions is this: uneducated mystics taking personal for universal.

Only because the "God" (I am putting this in quotation marks because the word is meaningless outside of personal experience) is telling you not to eat pork or fuck guys it does not mean you should treat it as a universal law. There is nothing more blasphemous, to me, than assuming you know what the "God" wants for other people.

Sufis are cool.

I mean I can't really argue with this because you prefaced it with saying "To me", but that is not the standard understanding of most religions.

[Martinus]

How about we agree that God is just not good at communicating with his underlings, and seems too detached to correct misunderstandings when they do pop up?

I think it's more the case of God's underlings being unable to communicate with each other. "God" is a part of our brain - but people are so fucking awe struck when they "touch" it, they externalise the experience. It's like people who have an awesome hallucinogen trip and suddenly think they have been to alternative dimensions.

[Martinus]

To me, the biggest problem with religions is this: uneducated mystics taking personal for universal.

Only because the "God" (I am putting this in quotation marks because the word is meaningless outside of personal experience) is telling you not to eat pork or fuck guys it does not mean you should treat it as a universal law. There is nothing more blasphemous, to me, than assuming you know what the "God" wants for other people.

Sufis are cool.

I mean I can't really argue with this because you prefaced it with saying "To me", but that is not the standard understanding of most religions.

Yes, because most people who follow religions never had a bona fide religious experience. So they go by what the mystics tell them.

[Berkut]

I would agree that it is largely pointless to argue about whether theists all believe in the same god or different gods - it just kind of annoys from a logical standpoint.

A "thing", whatever it is -  god, table, idea, whatever - has attributes that define it. The label we give it is NOT an attribute, it is just a label.

To say that a thing exists, is to say that some object with a set of attributes exists. To say that an object that you define as having attributes XYZ exists, and is the same as an object that has attributes AB and not Z is logically ridiculous. It is semantically invalid.

And that is what is happening. This is not a transitory characteristic, like shirt color - these are the fundamental "things" that define what the object actually is, and in the case of religious beliefs, these attributes drive behavior. To say that a Jew and a Muslim believe in the same god is just pure sophistry.

It probably isn't all that important sophistry, I suppose. But I never let something not being important stop me from thinking too much about it...

[DGuller]

How about we agree that God is just not good at communicating with his underlings, and seems too detached to correct misunderstandings when they do pop up?

I think it's more the case of God's underlings being unable to communicate with each other. "God" is a part of our brain - but people are so fucking awe struck when they "touch" it, they externalise the experience. It's like people who have an awesome hallucinogen trip and suddenly think they have been to alternative dimensions.

I guess maybe that's why God gave up on trying to correct misunderstandings.  No matter what he tries to communicate, people just find a way to fuck it up.  He's omnipotent, but not that omnipotent.

[Martinus]

I would agree that it is largely pointless to argue about whether theists all believe in the same god or different gods - it just kind of annoys from a logical standpoint.

A "thing", whatever it is -  god, table, idea, whatever - has attributes that define it. The label we give it is NOT an attribute, it is just a label.

To say that a thing exists, is to say that some object with a set of attributes exists. To say that an object that you define as having attributes XYZ exists, and is the same as an object that has attributes AB and not Z is logically ridiculous. It is semantically invalid.

And that is what is happening. This is not a transitory characteristic, like shirt color - these are the fundamental "things" that define what the object actually is, and in the case of religious beliefs, these attributes drive behavior. To say that a Jew and a Muslim believe in the same god is just pure sophistry.

It probably isn't all that important sophistry, I suppose. But I never let something not being important stop me from thinking too much about it...

No, I agree with you, but that is frustration coming from people being dumb, and using everything (including "God") for self-aggrandizement.

I think religious or mystical experiences are "real" in that they happen, they are quite awesome to those experiencing them, and they can constitute a positive experience. It's like having great sex or listening to an awesome piece of music - i.e. even if they serve no rational purpose and have no logical explanation, they nonetheless satisfy a need that cannot be substituted by another stimuli (in the same way, say, the experience from seeing your child grow up cannot be substituted by having a good meal or reading a good book).

They can also give us very interesting insights into our own nature, and help us develop on a psychological and a moral level - thus leading to increased happiness.

Now, the problem occurs when someone, who has just experienced this kind of revelation, begins to universalise and externalise it. It's like someone who finds a diet working for them, suddenly becomes a fanatic preaching that everybody else should follow the same diet - only that here the conviction is 1000 times greater, because the experience is so strong and life changing. So they begin to preach what they found was good for them - as a universal law for everybody to follow.

That's how mysticism degenerates into religion.

[Malthus]

I would agree that it is largely pointless to argue about whether theists all believe in the same god or different gods - it just kind of annoys from a logical standpoint.

A "thing", whatever it is -  god, table, idea, whatever - has attributes that define it. The label we give it is NOT an attribute, it is just a label.

To say that a thing exists, is to say that some object with a set of attributes exists. To say that an object that you define as having attributes XYZ exists, and is the same as an object that has attributes AB and not Z is logically ridiculous. It is semantically invalid.

And that is what is happening. This is not a transitory characteristic, like shirt color - these are the fundamental "things" that define what the object actually is, and in the case of religious beliefs, these attributes drive behavior. To say that a Jew and a Muslim believe in the same god is just pure sophistry.

It probably isn't all that important sophistry, I suppose. But I never let something not being important stop me from thinking too much about it...

A religious Jew, Muslim or Christian could reasonably argue that the "things" that define their mutual "God" are pretty general - omniscience, omnipotence, creator of the universe, etc. Whether he said not to eat shellfish isn't a truly significant aspect of his existence.

Anyway, apparently there is an answer to this, but it costs $20. 

http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/6689/do-we-worship-the-same-god.aspx

[Berkut]

I would agree that it is largely pointless to argue about whether theists all believe in the same god or different gods - it just kind of annoys from a logical standpoint.

A "thing", whatever it is -  god, table, idea, whatever - has attributes that define it. The label we give it is NOT an attribute, it is just a label.

To say that a thing exists, is to say that some object with a set of attributes exists. To say that an object that you define as having attributes XYZ exists, and is the same as an object that has attributes AB and not Z is logically ridiculous. It is semantically invalid.

And that is what is happening. This is not a transitory characteristic, like shirt color - these are the fundamental "things" that define what the object actually is, and in the case of religious beliefs, these attributes drive behavior. To say that a Jew and a Muslim believe in the same god is just pure sophistry.

It probably isn't all that important sophistry, I suppose. But I never let something not being important stop me from thinking too much about it...

A religious Jew, Muslim or Christian could reasonably argue that the "things" that define their mutual "God" are pretty general - omniscience, omnipotence, creator of the universe, etc. Whether he said not to eat shellfish isn't a truly significant aspect of his existence.

Logically, the significance of the attribute has no bearing on the matter.

If someone posited a deity that had very general attributes, and someone else posited a deity that had those exactly same general attributes, then I would agree that they are talking about the same deity.

But you don't get to do that, then add in a bunch more attributes afterwards that are NOT shared, and still claim that it is the same deity!

You don't get to say "I believe in a deity that is defined by these attributes: ABCDEF"

While someone else says "I believe in a deity defined by these attributes: ABCDXYZ"

And conclude that you both believe in a deity defined by only these attributes: "ABCD". Because neither of you actually believes in a deity with ONLY THOSE attributes.

[DGuller]

Why can't it be the same deity with just human-introduced misunderstandings about some of the more minor points? 

[grumbler]

But that is not how I read grumbler's argument.   I read his argument as saying that since there is widespread disagreement about the specific characteristics of God, the "majority view" as to any specific posited God is that it doesn't exist.  Thus by operation of a series of hypothetical votes, each posited God would be voted down, therefore one should conclude there is no God.  One problem with this argument is that the results could change if e.g. there was a massive conversion to one particular sect - then there would be clear majority in support of a singular god-concept.  By how could such a mere change of contingent human opinion cause a God to spring into existence?

That is not my argument at all.  My argument is that most religious people (I note exceptions) claim an exemption for their particular god that they deny to all other potential/postulated gods.  I don't have any real grief with this, I simply note that it is true.  So long as it is a matter of personal belief, and only affects their own behavior (without inconveniencing others unduly) I am perfectly happy to coexist with their beliefs.  I know any number of people for whom this is true.

No, I have grief with people who insist their their exceptional god requires that others behave in a certain way, and use either force or the coercion of the state to enforce those beliefs.  Don't want to take birth control because you think your god forbids it?  Knock yourself out.  Force others to forgo birth control because you think your god forbids them?  You've crossed the line, and I oppose that religious belief.

[Duque de Bragança]

Definitely not. Slovakia has made a law a few years ago that any Slovakian who takes up the granted Hungarian citizenship (on ethnic grounds) in Hungary, automatically loses his/her Slovakian citizenship. And this is for people who are only residents in Slovakia and nowhere else.

Did the EU care? No.

It wasn't clear to me from the article that the law would only apply to people with dual citizenship.

I thought it was clear in the BBC article. Turning people stateless is illegal under international conventions, though not mentioned in the article.

Making it easier to strip dual nationals of their French citizenship if they are convicted of a terrorist offence, as long as this did not render them stateless

[grumbler]

Also - take the B&G argument and apply it to a known existent person, say George Washington.

Some people think that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree.  Some people think he didn't. Does that mean they believe in two different people?  Should we question the existence of George Washington?

It could be objected that this is a trivial example, but it isn't difficult to think of historical personages about whom there are fundamental differences in interpretation - for example, Socrates, Caesar,  Augustine,  Napoleon - to the point of basic disagreement about the nature of the person and what he said, did, believed.

Gods are not historical personages about whom facts can be discovered.  They are not at all comparable.

And Mason Weems, who invented the story, didn't even include it in the first four editions of his "biography" of Washington.  He made no bones about the fact that his object was to tell morality tales, not historical facts (the fifth edition added the subtitle "Curious Anecdotes Laudable to Himself and Exemplary to his Countrymen"), and felt free to invent many stories about Washington and many other contemporaries for his "biographies."   People who think Washington chopped down the cherry tree are objectively incorrect.

[crazy canuck]

How about we agree that God is just not good at communicating with his underlings, and seems too detached to correct misunderstandings when they do pop up?

There is a line of religious teaching that God is unknowable so there is that.