I thought the Ayn Rand comment was funny, although while I think she was wrong about a lot of stuff, not necessarily wrong to take the government benefits. That is, if she'd had to pay tax to support medicare against her will, then why shouldn't she get the benefit from it? If not, maybe she'd have been more able to buy private insurance. I admit, refusing to take any of the benefits of government even if you can't avoid paying taxes[1] is a much more firm and dramatic objection, and the sort of thing she'd have liked to have done, but it doesn't necessarily make her a hypocrite. What does is failing later to consider that maybe, you know, other people in similar situations are not evil either!
[1] Insert rant about how most people don't have the luxury of living entirely off their own land without using government-supplied roads, rubbish vans, water, electricity, etc, etc.
Hm. I agree with the principle behind ignosticism, in that if a concept is undefined it's pointless to debate about what you guess it might mean, while someone argues about their own completely different guess.
But provided people define God in sufficiently vague terms, I agree there's no point quibbling about it, but I'm not yet convinced everyone does. Even if it's common to say "God exists 'in a very real sense'" I think many people would say God does exist (or doesn't exist).
I've yet to test this theory, but I think if you asked people if they thought prayer for healing would show scientifically verifiable results, some people would say "it works, but it wouldn't show verifiable results because [good reason]" but others would say "it doesn't work" or "it would show verifiable results"
The point, though, is that if people say "God exists" and aren't able to define what they mean by God then they're simply not worth arguing with, or spending any time discussing it with, because you have no idea what it is you're actually discussing.
If God's defined as 'the creator of the universe', then that's something that can be argued about. But there's been plenty of gods who weren't considered the creator of the universe, so 'god' and 'creator of the universe' don't necessarily go together.
And a third group of people would just point you to theactual scientifically verifiable results. Which show that praying does have an effect - but only when the sick know they're being prayed for...
But that's what I said (?) Analogy: Do telepathy, unicorns or free will exist? I think most people would agree on what constituted telepathy (not in all the details, but in a few essential ones), most people would be completely unable to give a coherent account of what constitutes free will, and people would disagree about what constitutes a unicorn (does it have to be magical? equine? natural?).
So we can say telepathy almost certainly doesn't exist (or at any rate, we've looked for it and not found it), it's meaningless to ask whether free will exists, because the question is essentially solely decided by how people choose to interpret it, and it may be meaningful to ask whether unicorns exist but only if you clarify what you mean.
Which of these is the concept of "God" most like?
I agree many people might want to do things like keep a belief that "God wants me to be nice to people" while de-emphasising questions like "does God literally exist as an all-powerful extra-planar being who created the universe", which I whole-heartedly support and I assume Rabbi Wine was embracing a more sophisticated version of (?) This seems like the "free will" end of the continuum "we agree these questions are important, but we think 'does God exist' is not a meaningful question".
But adopting ignosticism as a position seems to very very very strongly imply not just that if concepts of God are inherently ill-defined, then there is no sensible answer to whether God exists, but that most people's concepts of God are typically undefinable.
That was probably very true for Rabbi Wine, and for many of my friends who are Jewish or ex-CoE-deist or ex-CoE-atheist-but-don't-want-to-be or similar, who believe in something but aren't sure what or think that what they believed in their religion was right, but more metaphorical than literal.
But also, I think many, many people believe in a literal all-powerful being who sustains the universe, answers prayer, presides over heaven, etc, etc. and even if we can't agree on all the details of what constitutes their notion of God, we can agree that it involves most of a small set of big ones and while there are some beings that might fit the definition sort of, there are many which do fit the definition, and if existed, would plainly be God. And that it is in fact important whether those people are right or not!
I guess you might well say, it's better to shift from a theist position to an ignosticist one than an atheist one (for many people I believe that to be true), but I think this is something which requires a stronger justification than assuming that definitions of God (a) are incoherent but (b) contain vital stuff you can't just throw out.
It's a question of whether those positions that people hold that they believe are coherent actually are. Personally, I've found that a lot of Christian beliefs (and I'm picking them because they're the religion I'm most familiar with, not because they're less coherent than anyone else) pretty incoherent. But that may be because the idea of infinite anything is pretty odd, let alone trying to reconcile free will, omnipotence, omniscience and sin into one package seems utterly impossible to me. Especially when I consider free will to be an incoherent idea in the first place.
Ah, I see, that's an interesting perspective. I'm happy to consider Christianity. I know what you mean; I've friends who are very intellectually religious, but I'm very familiar with people having a grab-bag approach[1]. Although the contents of the belief are very different, I'd compare it to someone who believes in new-age medicine or in conspiracy theories: they've a grab bag of different associated beliefs, some good, some bad, and have the impression they all join up, but haven't critically examined many of them, and aren't sure which ones they're firm on. (And I'm sure I hold similar messes of belief about stuff I don't know much about, although I hope I don't hold to them dogmatically)
But even then, some sets of belief are truly empty, and some have something in even if it isn't clear. If you talk to someone who believes in new age medicine and say "the standard interpretation of homeopathy doesn't work because xxxx, yyyy and zzzz[2]" they may say "oh, huh, um, obviously that's nonsense, but um, maybe MOST new age medicine works for, um, some other reason"
Which is incredibly frustrating, and why James Randi goes to such incredible lengths to pin down people who claim to do something supernatural to something very specific (and even then most people try to wriggle out of it afterwards).
But also, I think that many people in that situation don't believe nothing: they've got a grab-bag of random assumptions that they think this treatment works, or this conventional treatment doesn't, that aren't very firmly held and are prone to shift around. But I think they have some underlying beliefs that are not VERY precise, but are somewhat clear, like "medicine is complicated and doctors don't know as much as they think they do" and "there's a lot of stuff out there we dont' know abnout waiting to be found" and so on, even if they don't articulate them, and they may if they're willing to sincerely think about it, eventually reject those beliefs.
And I think the same applies to many people with vague religious belief: some of them maybe do believe in God only as a metaphor (or as something else I'm not competent to explain) but others clearly believe _something_ specific exists, even if they're not capable of explaining what...
[1] When I was a young undergraduate, and hadn't heard of the Euthyphro Dilemma, I used to ask people who wanted to offer me religion "did God create morality, or is subject to morality", and I'd be happy with answers like "created" or "subject" or "we don't know, but following God seems to work out ok for us so far" (although I might follow up on the answers), it wasn't that I thought the question was unanswerable, it was that the answer I always got was "uh.... I don't know" which hardly filled me with glee that the person I was talking to was a good representative of a coherent position...
There was a friend of mine (and I'm buggered if I can remember who) who went home during University having abandoned religion. And their mother arranged for the local religious representative to talk to them (I think CofE, but don't quote me). And the representative sat down with some tea and biscuits to discuss it in a paternalistic "Don't you _really_ want to do what God wants?" manner. At which point my friend asked something really obvious (like "How do you reconcile omnipotence and evil?" or "How do omniscience and free will go together?" at which point the representative said "Um, er." and fled like a startled rabbit.
Which always stuns me. Because I find it baffling that people who spend their entire lives centred around an idea haven't at least thought about it somewhat. ===
Also, yes, I totally agree that there's a continuum. There are people who have no coherent beliefs at all, just a grab bag of whatever sounded nice when they were in the idea shop. And there are people who have solid beliefs that they think tie together into a coherent whole. And while I also find the ideas of the latter group incoherent, it's not nearly so incoherent as the first lot.
Yeah, the description of your friend is really evocative. Perhaps once-a-year CoE Christians (even members of the church) are a good example of believing something, but the core of that something not _necessarily_ involving a literal God.
Which I don't want to push too loudly because it's somewhat prejudicial to people who don't want CoE to become associated with "non-serious" belief. But also, it is a place (like many religious have) where people often get involved with church events, and socialise with the congregation, and look to them for spiritual support, yet maybe get less actually religious.
And many people either stay and don't mention it, or drift away, possibly coming to identify as atheist or agnostic. (I'm sure there are hits for "atheist bishop", though I haven't tried it :))
But from that perspective, an approach of not picking at the definition of God may actually be a very useful one.
Yup, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who get something out of the social elements and don't want to mention that they don't believe in case they have to stop spending time with their friends.
I like the idea of ignosticism, but it's interesting that it's distinct from other theological positions in that it's predicated on someone else's belief.
For instance I can define myself as atheist/theist and agnostic/gnostic about any (of an infinite) set of gods, but in any given argument I can be ignostic until the other party has defined just which god they mean.
I suppose it's like having a map (in the computing sense) with an index of god and a value of a theism/gnosticism tuple (plus a function to define that tuple for any new god key), the problem being those people who keep trying to access your map without first initialising their key value.
I intensely enjoyed looking through the self portraits Bryan Saunders did while he was on various highs. Something I haven't thought of in my own artwork. I have done a few self portraits to get across what I was feeling at the time. Too bad the days of experimenting have past. I would be tempted to follow suit. I do associate with a few. PCP is believable. And Psilocybin Mushrooms, way too hilarious. I totally agree!!
I don't see that taking advantage of things that the state offers you even if you don't feel that the state should offer them is hypocritical. There are lots of things that I don't think the state should provide out of taxation. However, I have to pay that tax whether I like it or not, so I'd be 'cutting off my own nose to spite my face' if I didn't what the state said I was entitled to.
In re Juden raus: See also Swastika Night, a novel published in 1937 and set 700 years later after a Nazi victory, which includes the extermination of the Jews.
Various links (most of which copy each other) mention that Juden Raus was heavily criticized by the Nazis, but no one has explained why.
Ignosticism: You might be interested in Doubt by Jennifer Michael Hecht, a history of ideas of the limits of knowledge.
The Book of Not Knowing by Peter Ralston. I've only read about half of it, but it's an extended exploration of the fact that your idea of yourself isn't the same as your actual self.
Ralston is a martial artist who's used logic and introspection to go deep into the roots of action and perception.
It's certainly not hypocritical if you use as Rand's premise, "maximising one's personal gain is the only good."
However, arguing for the superiority of minarchist/anarchocapitalist societies while suckling at the teat of the nanny state certainly strikes those of us who don't accept the above premise as hypocritical. Rand wasn't using Social Security and Medicare out of a principled stand, but out of dire personal need... a strong argument against the superiority of minimialist/anarchocapitalist society.
-- Steve's a strong believer in social safety nets, because one can be more creative and innovative when a single failure doesn't lead to utter destruction. You get greater successes when rewarding successes than you do when penalising failures.
It's certainly her admitting that there are times that people need state aid. It's therefore hypocritical of her to carry on lobbying against it after she used it.
But maybe if it wasn't for the extra taxation required to pay for that service, she would have made her own arrangements* out of the money she didn't pay in taxes.
I'm not saying this definitely would have happened, but maybe that was her logic.
* With private sector suppliers who perhaps wouldn't have been crowded out by the public sector.
More Ralston: The Principles of Effortless Power-- as I understand it, clearing out illusions and increasing one's understanding so that one's actions become extremely efficient-- it seemed like getting movement to the same level that savants have with computation. Zen Body-Being: Ralston's wife convinces him to write a relatively accessible version of the former book.
I find it perennially amusing that Ralston, who'd put huge amounts of work into getting into the truth of experience, still needed to be pushed to getting past "I did all this work on my own. At least you have a book. And now you want a book that's easier to understand?".
If that was her logic, then she was either innumerate or just too wedded to her dogma to see the gaping chasm between what she'd paid in taxes and what it costs to deal with old age and cancer in addition to the other "true" costs of government services she'd used for so many decades.
Also, if you haven't read it already Norman Spinrad's Iron Dream, as an imagined alternative past in which Hitler becomes a pulp author in the US and fantasises about, rather than attempts to realise, his 1000 year reich.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
[1] Insert rant about how most people don't have the luxury of living entirely off their own land without using government-supplied roads, rubbish vans, water, electricity, etc, etc.
no subject
But provided people define God in sufficiently vague terms, I agree there's no point quibbling about it, but I'm not yet convinced everyone does. Even if it's common to say "God exists 'in a very real sense'" I think many people would say God does exist (or doesn't exist).
I've yet to test this theory, but I think if you asked people if they thought prayer for healing would show scientifically verifiable results, some people would say "it works, but it wouldn't show verifiable results because [good reason]" but others would say "it doesn't work" or "it would show verifiable results"
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
So we can say telepathy almost certainly doesn't exist (or at any rate, we've looked for it and not found it), it's meaningless to ask whether free will exists, because the question is essentially solely decided by how people choose to interpret it, and it may be meaningful to ask whether unicorns exist but only if you clarify what you mean.
Which of these is the concept of "God" most like?
I agree many people might want to do things like keep a belief that "God wants me to be nice to people" while de-emphasising questions like "does God literally exist as an all-powerful extra-planar being who created the universe", which I whole-heartedly support and I assume Rabbi Wine was embracing a more sophisticated version of (?) This seems like the "free will" end of the continuum "we agree these questions are important, but we think 'does God exist' is not a meaningful question".
But adopting ignosticism as a position seems to very very very strongly imply not just that if concepts of God are inherently ill-defined, then there is no sensible answer to whether God exists, but that most people's concepts of God are typically undefinable.
That was probably very true for Rabbi Wine, and for many of my friends who are Jewish or ex-CoE-deist or ex-CoE-atheist-but-don't-want-to-be or similar, who believe in something but aren't sure what or think that what they believed in their religion was right, but more metaphorical than literal.
But also, I think many, many people believe in a literal all-powerful being who sustains the universe, answers prayer, presides over heaven, etc, etc. and even if we can't agree on all the details of what constitutes their notion of God, we can agree that it involves most of a small set of big ones and while there are some beings that might fit the definition sort of, there are many which do fit the definition, and if existed, would plainly be God. And that it is in fact important whether those people are right or not!
I guess you might well say, it's better to shift from a theist position to an ignosticist one than an atheist one (for many people I believe that to be true), but I think this is something which requires a stronger justification than assuming that definitions of God (a) are incoherent but (b) contain vital stuff you can't just throw out.
Does that make any sense?
no subject
no subject
But even then, some sets of belief are truly empty, and some have something in even if it isn't clear. If you talk to someone who believes in new age medicine and say "the standard interpretation of homeopathy doesn't work because xxxx, yyyy and zzzz[2]" they may say "oh, huh, um, obviously that's nonsense, but um, maybe MOST new age medicine works for, um, some other reason"
Which is incredibly frustrating, and why James Randi goes to such incredible lengths to pin down people who claim to do something supernatural to something very specific (and even then most people try to wriggle out of it afterwards).
But also, I think that many people in that situation don't believe nothing: they've got a grab-bag of random assumptions that they think this treatment works, or this conventional treatment doesn't, that aren't very firmly held and are prone to shift around. But I think they have some underlying beliefs that are not VERY precise, but are somewhat clear, like "medicine is complicated and doctors don't know as much as they think they do" and "there's a lot of stuff out there we dont' know abnout waiting to be found" and so on, even if they don't articulate them, and they may if they're willing to sincerely think about it, eventually reject those beliefs.
And I think the same applies to many people with vague religious belief: some of them maybe do believe in God only as a metaphor (or as something else I'm not competent to explain) but others clearly believe _something_ specific exists, even if they're not capable of explaining what...
[1] When I was a young undergraduate, and hadn't heard of the Euthyphro Dilemma, I used to ask people who wanted to offer me religion "did God create morality, or is subject to morality", and I'd be happy with answers like "created" or "subject" or "we don't know, but following God seems to work out ok for us so far" (although I might follow up on the answers), it wasn't that I thought the question was unanswerable, it was that the answer I always got was "uh.... I don't know" which hardly filled me with glee that the person I was talking to was a good representative of a coherent position...
no subject
Which always stuns me. Because I find it baffling that people who spend their entire lives centred around an idea haven't at least thought about it somewhat.
===
Also, yes, I totally agree that there's a continuum. There are people who have no coherent beliefs at all, just a grab bag of whatever sounded nice when they were in the idea shop. And there are people who have solid beliefs that they think tie together into a coherent whole. And while I also find the ideas of the latter group incoherent, it's not nearly so incoherent as the first lot.
no subject
Which I don't want to push too loudly because it's somewhat prejudicial to people who don't want CoE to become associated with "non-serious" belief. But also, it is a place (like many religious have) where people often get involved with church events, and socialise with the congregation, and look to them for spiritual support, yet maybe get less actually religious.
And many people either stay and don't mention it, or drift away, possibly coming to identify as atheist or agnostic. (I'm sure there are hits for "atheist bishop", though I haven't tried it :))
But from that perspective, an approach of not picking at the definition of God may actually be a very useful one.
no subject
no subject
Social Security taxes go into a special fund which earns interest. The program pays for itself.
no subject
no subject
For instance I can define myself as atheist/theist and agnostic/gnostic about any (of an infinite) set of gods, but in any given argument I can be ignostic until the other party has defined just which god they mean.
I suppose it's like having a map (in the computing sense) with an index of god and a value of a theism/gnosticism tuple (plus a function to define that tuple for any new god key), the problem being those people who keep trying to access your map without first initialising their key value.
I have been programming all weekend.
RE: This is Your Artistic Brain on Drugs...
no subject
I don't see that taking advantage of things that the state offers you even if you don't feel that the state should offer them is hypocritical. There are lots of things that I don't think the state should provide out of taxation. However, I have to pay that tax whether I like it or not, so I'd be 'cutting off my own nose to spite my face' if I didn't what the state said I was entitled to.
no subject
Various links (most of which copy each other) mention that Juden Raus was heavily criticized by the Nazis, but no one has explained why.
Ignosticism: You might be interested in Doubt by Jennifer Michael Hecht, a history of ideas of the limits of knowledge.
The Book of Not Knowing by Peter Ralston. I've only read about half of it, but it's an extended exploration of the fact that your idea of yourself isn't the same as your actual self.
Ralston is a martial artist who's used logic and introspection to go deep into the roots of action and perception.
no subject
However, arguing for the superiority of minarchist/anarchocapitalist societies while suckling at the teat of the nanny state certainly strikes those of us who don't accept the above premise as hypocritical. Rand wasn't using Social Security and Medicare out of a principled stand, but out of dire personal need... a strong argument against the superiority of minimialist/anarchocapitalist society.
-- Steve's a strong believer in social safety nets, because one can be more creative and innovative when a single failure doesn't lead to utter destruction. You get greater successes when rewarding successes than you do when penalising failures.
no subject
no subject
Swastika Night sounds fascinating too. I'm boggled that I hadn't heard of it before, as it definitely sounds like an antecedent to 1984.
no subject
I'm not saying this definitely would have happened, but maybe that was her logic.
* With private sector suppliers who perhaps wouldn't have been crowded out by the public sector.
no subject
I find it perennially amusing that Ralston, who'd put huge amounts of work into getting into the truth of experience, still needed to be pushed to getting past "I did all this work on my own. At least you have a book. And now you want a book that's easier to understand?".
no subject
-- Steve wouldn't doubt the latter possibility, given what'd given her that cancer in the first place.
no subject
no subject
no subject