Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[Belz...]

It's nice to see that you're still dancing around, Stone. He's not necessarily a bad citizen but definitely not a good one ? How is that possible, now ?

[joobz]

duplicate

[joobz]

Maybe he's just a citizen, neither good nor bad. Neuhaus never said that a atheist couldn't be a citizen and he didn't say they were necessarily a bad citizen, just that they couldn't be a good citizen. Perhaps our language has become debased enough that good has come to mean the mere minimum.
So, now you claiming there are levels to citizenry and that what you believe dictates which levels are available to you?

In other words:
So, a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes no god is able to be at best a citizen.

Whereas, a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in any of the countless number of gods that have been worshiped is able to be a maximum a good citizen.

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the god of abraham is able to be a maximum a great citizen.

or

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the christian god is able to be a maximum an outstanding citizen.

...

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the southern revivalist, northeast chapter of the baptist reformationists 2nd house assembly's god is able to be a maximum a super double secret mega-happy inverted dancing magoo awesomeness great citizen.

[cgordon]

I don't know.


Bingo! Now, you're starting to make sense.

[cgordon]

I don't know.


Bingo! Now, you're starting to make sense.

[cgordon]

I don't know.


Bingo! Now, you're starting to make sense.

[godless dave]

The question is why are democracy, press freedom, and low corruption are objective moral criteria? Why is that a justified position to take? It seems to me that to make that case you would have to appeal to a standard that is no more empirically justified than an appeal to God or gods.

Why does it need to be empirically justified?



The "every mother loves her son..." bit is to remind you that (almost) everyone loves their country, even profoundly screwed up countries. Is their love justified or is it merely the result of arbitrary birth location?

It's the result of arbitrary birth location, obviously. Country does not equal government.

[joobz]

triplicate...

[Stone Island]

That's a rather odd statement and I do not know what it has to do with neuhaus and his illogical argument. Are you a student doing substitute teaching?

The point is that I've been busy and I haven't given some very good points the answer they deserve.

ABD, Ph.D. Political Science (Political Theory and American)

[Stone Island]

Why does it need to be empirically justified?


What other sort of justification for rights could you offer, other than mere arbitrary preference?

Are cannibal societies less justified than natural rights republics? Why?

[Stone Island]

So, now you claiming there are levels to citizenry and that what you believe dictates which levels are available to you?

In other words:
So, a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes no god is able to be at best a citizen.

Whereas, a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in any of the countless number of gods that have been worshiped is able to be a maximum a good citizen.

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the god of abraham is able to be a maximum a great citizen.

or

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the christian god is able to be a maximum an outstanding citizen.

...

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the southern revivalist, northeast chapter of the baptist reformationists 2nd house assembly's god is able to be a maximum a super double secret mega-happy inverted dancing magoo awesomeness great citizen.

That's clever, and I see your point, but it's not my argument. In fact, I've been very careful to make sure that that isn't my argument. Please, try and pay attention.

Neither a communist nor an atheist cannot be a good citizen of the United States of America because they both reject the possibility that natural rights or natural law is true in any metaphysically interesting or morally obligatory sense. Communists because they bow to other gods. Atheists because they reject the possibility of any gods.

[Stone Island]

Not the slightest chance you could ever be in "my" schools. Where I live, you would be barred from teaching for daring to suggest there is more to be a good citizen than to respect the laws of the land.

To link professing a belief to being a good citizen is the apanage of tyrannical theocracies, not of modern civilised democracies.

Are those laws good? How do you know? Apart from whether you prefer the law to be one way or another, is there some objective standard against which the laws can be judged? Wouldn't a good citizen be one who helps the state make it's laws adhere more closely to what is actually good as opposed to what is apparently good?

So, Flo, in your country I don't suppose they teach Plato's Socrates? That's a shame if they don't.

[ImaginalDisc]

What other sort of justification for rights could you offer, other than mere arbitrary preference?

Are cannibal societies less justified than natural rights republics? Why?

Let's see. I assume you mean societies where people are cannibalized before they die of natural causes, and against their will, as opposed to some cultures where cannibalism is a compontent of funerary rites.

In that society, there would not be any protection of the rights of people to live. If you want to live in a society where you don't have to worry about being next week's dinner (and face it, a human's at least a week's worth of good eating) you need to build a society where the rights of each person belong to every person.

Maybe it bothers you that societies, justice, and morality are mostly human constructs (with some strong evolutionary input, as we are social animals and social animals all over the world seem to have some commonalities) but tough ****, the universe doesn't owe you comfort. Morality is not objective. This is a fact. You cannot find an objective universal moral rubric anywhere you look. Simply examining the variation of human societies puts lie to the idea that there is such a thing as universal human morality.

[joobz]

That's clever, and I see your point, but it's not my argument. In fact, I've been very careful to make sure that that isn't my argument. Please, try and pay attention.What do you mean by "your argument." Are you claiming that I'm misrepresenting the argument at hand or are you claiming that this is all Neuhaus' argument? If it is the former, you are wrong. I've simply extrapolated the argument you've made. If it is the later, that's irrelevant as the argument that you presented is weak regardless who came up with it. And it is that argument which I am challenging as poor.

Neither a communist nor an atheist cannot be a good citizen of the United States of America because they both reject the possibility that natural rights or natural law is true in any metaphysically interesting or morally obligatory sense. Communists because they bow to other gods. Atheists because they reject the possibility of any gods.

So how is my argument wrong? You now claim that citizenry requires not JUST the belief in god(s) but the belief in the right god(s). Your are simply reinforcing my critique.

And if you meant that "communists bow to other gods" as a metaphor that a person who is communist can't be a good citizen in a capitalist democracy, then doesn't it stand to reason that a capitalist can't be a good citizen in a communist society?

[joobz]

The point is that I've been busy and I haven't given some very good points the answer they deserve.Fair enough. End of the semester is very busy times.

ABD, Ph.D. Political Science (Political Theory and American)
This worries me. Are we simply writing your disertation or class report for you?

[Belz...]

Neither a communist nor an atheist cannot be a good citizen of the United States of America because they both reject the possibility that natural rights or natural law is true in any metaphysically interesting or morally obligatory sense.

The problem with this, Stone, and I really wish you didn't have me on ignore so you could read this post, is that you have NEVER provided any reason for us to believe that accepting "the possibility that natural rights or natural law" is a prerequisite to being a good citizen. In fact, it doesn't even fit with the definition you gave earlier. You said that, to be a good citizen, somebody had to give an account, or something. Now you say that they have to believe in natural laws. I assume you think both are necessary. You have never explained why you think so. In fact, it's been shown to be untrue.

[Stone Island]

This worries me. Are we simply writing your disertation or class report for you?

Don't flatter yourself. This is merely an amusing distraction from me. I'm sorry, but the standard here is generally way too low to make much use of.

My dissertation is on the theory of the Federative power in Locke, anyway.

I wanted to do something on the conflict between poetry and philosophy in Aristophanes but my professor told me that if I didn't have much Greek this late in the game it was probably too late to get a good start.

[ImaginalDisc]

Don't flatter yourself. This is merely an amusing distraction from me. I'm sorry, but the standard here is generally way too low to make much use of.

Oh?

So is your sense of academic rigor "post a link to something, make no commentary or analysis, and when engaged in a discussion, weasel and dodge?"

This forum happens to be a place where evidence and logic are encouraged, so if it doesn't meet your standards I sumbit that your standards don't involve reason or facts.

[Stone Island]

Let's see. I assume you mean societies where people are cannibalized before they die of natural causes, and against their will, as opposed to some cultures where cannibalism is a compontent of funerary rites.

In that society, there would not be any protection of the rights of people to live. If you want to live in a society where you don't have to worry about being next week's dinner (and face it, a human's at least a week's worth of good eating) you need to build a society where the rights of each person belong to every person.

Maybe it bothers you that societies, justice, and morality are mostly human constructs (with some strong evolutionary input, as we are social animals and social animals all over the world seem to have some commonalities) but tough ****, the universe doesn't owe you comfort. Morality is not objective. This is a fact. You cannot find an objective universal moral rubric anywhere you look. Simply examining the variation of human societies puts lie to the idea that there is such a thing as universal human morality.

Thus Spake Zarathustra:
MANY lands saw Zarathustra, and many peoples: thus he discovered the
good and bad of many peoples. (http://mindyourmaker.wordpress.com/2007/07/11/thus-spoke-zarathustra-the-1001-goals/) No greater power did Zarathustra find on
earth than good and bad.
No people could live without first valuing; if a people will
maintain itself, however, it must not value as its neighbour valueth.
Much that passed for good with one people was regarded with scorn
and contempt by another: thus I found it. Much found I here called
bad, which was there decked with purple honours.
Never did the one neighbour understand the other: ever did his
soul marvel at his neighbour’s delusion and wickedness.

[ImaginalDisc]

The problem with this, Stone, and I really wish you didn't have me on ignore so you could read this post, is that you have NEVER provided any reason for us to believe that accepting "the possibility that natural rights or natural law" is a prerequisite to being a good citizen. In fact, it doesn't even fit with the definition you gave earlier. You said that, to be a good citizen, somebody had to give an account, or something. Now you say that they have to believe in natural laws. I assume you think both are necessary. You have never explained why you think so. In fact, it's been shown to be untrue.

quoted because Stone seems to have Belz... on ignore, and Blez... is right.

[joobz]

Don't flatter yourself. This is merely an amusing distraction from me. I'm sorry, but the standard here is generally way too low to make much use of.I would believe this if you had been making and defending solid arguments. Unfortunately, the evidence you provide does not support that case.

[ImaginalDisc]

Thus Spake Zarathustra:

That's nice.

What do you think? Can you articulate a rebuttal?

[Stone Island]

The operational theory of the United States of America is that something very much like "nature and nature's God" created man with inalienable rights. From my readings it's clear that the writers of the Constitution believed something very much like that to be the case.

Now, the question is, is belief in natural rights a justified true belief (i.e., knowledge), a true belief (but not justified and only could be held as a matter of faith), or merely a belief (and thus an arbitrary position akin to saying "I prefer").

[ImaginalDisc]

The operational theory of the United States of America is that something very much like "nature and nature's God" created man with inalienable rights. From my readings it's clear that the writers of the Constitution believed something very much like that to be the case.

Now, the question is, is belief in natural rights a justified true belief (i.e., knowledge), a true belief (but not justified), or merely a belief (and thus arbitrary).

Ahem.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Let me repeat the most salient part.

We the people of the United States


The U.S. Constitution does not assume a god or rights derived from a god. It is an entirely secular document, a social contract worthy of Thomas Paine. The Constitution is a mutal agreement of the people, it does not make reference to god, derive rights, laws, or authoirty from god. It is a document in which the nation to be built is build on the best intentions and best efforts of the people. You might perhaps be thinking, erroneously, of the Declaration of Independence, which make reference to a creator, in the minimalist, deistic sense - which was as minimal a god as could be agreed on at the time.

That document, however, is not in any sense the legal foundation for the government of the United States. It was a diplomatic screed.

Your premise is false, therefore your conclusion is false.

[Stone Island]

Ahem.



Let me repeat the most salient part.




The U.S. Constitution does not assume a god or rights derived from a god. It is an entirely secular document, a social contract worthy of Thomas Paine. The Constitution is a mutal agreement of the people, it does not make reference to god, derive rights, laws, or authoirty from god. It is a document in which the nation to be built is build on the best intentions and best efforts of the people. You might perhaps be thinking, erroneously, of the Declaration of Independence, which make reference to a creator, in the minimalist, deistic sense - which was as minimal a god as could be agreed on at the time.

That document, however, is not in any sense the legal foundation for the government of the United States. It was a diplomatic screed.

Your premise is false, therefore your conclusion is false.

Your use of "diplomatic screed" is poisoning the well. What did Thomas Jefferson want to be remembered for? Founding the Univ. of Virginia and writing the DOI. That is, of course, an argument from authority.

I hold that the DOI and the Constitution both derive from the same political/philosophical tradition and that to separate them does violence to what the Founders actually thought. Simply put, it's an empirical question. It's not whether the Founders need to believe in the truth of the DOI to write the Constitution, it's whether they did or not that must be answered.


WE, THEREFORE, THE REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these Colonies...The Constitution, unamended, makes use of rights language (habeas corpus, no ex post facto laws etc...) . Article 9 and 10 of the Constitution are helpful for understanding this as well.

[godless dave]

What other sort of justification for rights could you offer, other than mere arbitrary preference?

What's wrong with human preference? Why do rights even need justification? It seems to me, the one's who would want to take away rights - which is to say, prevent other humans from doing or saying things - are the ones who I would demand justification from.


Are cannibal societies less justified than natural rights republics? Why?

Societies aren't "justified" at all.

[godless dave]

Are those laws good? How do you know?

You can't "know" if laws are good. You can only judge if laws are good, by a subjective value judgement based on human values and human experience.


Apart from whether you prefer the law to be one way or another, is there some objective standard against which the laws can be judged?

No. The preferences of the citizens to whom the laws apply is the only standard, and it is the only one that is needed.


Wouldn't a good citizen be one who helps the state make it's laws adhere more closely to what is actually good as opposed to what is apparently good?


What's the difference?

[ImaginalDisc]

Your use of "diplomatic screed" is poisoning the well. What did Thomas Jefferson want to be remembered for? Founding the Univ. of Virginia and writing the DOI. That is, of course, an argument from authority.

I hold that the DOI and the Constitution both derive from the same political/philosophical tradition and that to separate them does violence to what the Founders actually thought. Simply put, it's an empirical question. It's not whether the Founders need to believe in the truth of the DOI to write the Constitution, it's whether they did or not that must be answered.

The Constitution, unamended, makes use of rights language (habeas corpus, no ex post facto laws etc...) . Article 9 and 10 of the Constitution are helpful for understanding this as well.

It merely assumes those laws exist and seeks to protect them. By incorproating them into the highest law of the land it makes them the de facto rights we are endowed with by our Constitution. It makes no legal or logical difference whether one believes habeas corpus is a right derived from English Common Law traditions and incorporated into the legal framework of the U.S., or if you believe that God on his throne, flocks of angels buzzing around his head once said, "LET THERE BE HABEAS CORPUS - BUT WAIT FOR LATIN FIRST." The U.S. government does not require that we believe the later, and belief in the later isn't required to be a good citizen or for society to function.

In fact, the U.S. Constitution explicetely says it's a document writen by the people to form a more perfect union. They used the frameworks they had on hand and could devise. No god required.

[godless dave]

Now, the question is, is belief in natural rights a justified true belief (i.e., knowledge), a true belief (but not justified and only could be held as a matter of faith), or merely a belief (and thus an arbitrary position akin to saying "I prefer").

There is no difference between the latter two. A belief held as a matter of faith is identical to a belief based on preference.

[Stone Island]

I would suggest that anyone interested in the natural rights basis of the Constitution read The Federalist #84 written by Alexander Hamilton.

[godless dave]

I hold that the DOI and the Constitution both derive from the same political/philosophical tradition and that to separate them does violence to what the Founders actually thought. Simply put, it's an empirical question. It's not whether the Founders need to believe in the truth of the DOI to write the Constitution, it's whether they did or not that must be answered.

I agree with your first statement, but not with the importance you gave to it. What philosophies the founders had is irrelevant to the practice of being a good citizen of the US. Being a good citizen of the US requires certain behavior; it does not require a philosophy.


The Constitution, unamended, makes use of rights language (habeas corpus, no ex post facto laws etc...) . Article 9 and 10 of the Constitution are helpful for understanding this as well.

So what? That doesn't help your argument at all. Being an atheist does not prevent someone from valuing human rights.

[godless dave]

I would suggest that anyone interested in the natural rights basis of the Constitution read The Federalist #84 written by Alexander Hamilton.

I've read it; I have the book of Federalist Papers at home. It's irrelevant to your argument. The philosophical motiviations of the authors of the Constitution are irrelevant to the question of good citizenship.

[Complexity]

The point is that I've been busy and I haven't given some very good points the answer they deserve.

ABD, Ph.D. Political Science (Political Theory and American)


You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Foster Zygote]

Neither a communist nor an atheist cannot be a good citizen of the United States of America because they both reject the possibility that natural rights or natural law is true in any metaphysically interesting or morally obligatory sense. Communists because they bow to other gods. Atheists because they reject the possibility of any gods.

I know the coward has put me on ignore, or at least claims to have done so, but that will not protect his arguments from criticisms that everyone else can read.

First of all, I would like to know what precludes a communist from believing in natural rights. The familiar Communists regimes may have officially backed a doctrine of atheism, but why can a US citizen who is also a communist not believe in the concept of natural rights, or even a god? This is a perfect example of the sort of sloppy arguments Stone Island puts forth.

And what does he mean by "morally obligatory"? Could an atheist feel "morally obliged" by his own code of ethics to risk his life by leaping into a freezing river to rescue strangers from a car wreck?

And if it's really because they "bow to other gods" then what's to stop someone else like Neuhaus coming along and declaring arbitrarily that one must be able to give an account of the Abrahamic god to be a good citizen, declaring all who are not Jewish, Christian or Muslim from being good citizens. What's to stop someone from claiming arbitrarily that only those who can offer an account of the Christian god are capable of good citizenry. These are equally as arbitrary as Neuhaus' argument regarding atheism and citizenship considering that no one has yet offered a convincing reason to conclude that any legal document of the United States makes the slightest mention of natural rights or even god.

[ImaginalDisc]

I would suggest that anyone interested in the natural rights basis of the Constitution read The Federalist #84 written by Alexander Hamilton.

I would suggest that anyone attempting to make an argument by citing a document, especially a graduate student writing a disseration, quote the specific material they feel cannot be summarized without either misrepresenting the quotation as their own words, or refer to the works of others with a link and/or footnote where a broader point owes support or its genesis to an earlier work.

I would suggest that person take pains to carefully structure their argument and show how their position is not merely a parroting of earlier authors, nor mere plagarism.

I would suggest that person use the experience of having their arguments rebutted on an internet forum as thoroughly as this consider the weak points of their work and revise, edit, or buttress their material accordingly.

I would suggest that person learn how to articulate their own thoughts.

[joobz]

I noticed you had not addressed this post, I'm simply repeating it to give you an opportunity to make yourself clear.
What do you mean by "your argument." Are you claiming that I'm misrepresenting the argument at hand or are you claiming that this is all Neuhaus' argument? If it is the former, you are wrong. I've simply extrapolated the argument you've made. If it is the later, that's irrelevant as the argument that you presented is weak regardless who came up with it. And it is that argument which I am challenging as poor.

So how is my argument wrong? You now claim that citizenry requires not JUST the belief in god(s) but the belief in the right god(s). Your are simply reinforcing my critique.

And if you meant that "communists bow to other gods" as a metaphor that a person who is communist can't be a good citizen in a capitalist democracy, then doesn't it stand to reason that a capitalist can't be a good citizen in a communist society?

[Belz...]

Don't flatter yourself. This is merely an amusing distraction from me. I'm sorry, but the standard here is generally way too low to make much use of.

This smells of an inferiority complex. It's not the first time I see this and the person is invariably wrong when they do.

[Belz...]

That's nice.

What do you think? Can you articulate a rebuttal?

He reminds me of the Junkions in Transformers, who always quote stupid commercials instead of speaking on their own.

[Belz...]

The operational theory of the United States of America is that something very much like "nature and nature's God" created man with inalienable rights.

Actually, it speaks of inalienable HUMAN rights, determined by MEN, not gods. Sheesh, I know this and I'm not even American.

[Belz...]

What's wrong with human preference? Why do rights even need justification? It seems to me, the one's who would want to take away rights - which is to say, prevent other humans from doing or saying things - are the ones who I would demand justification from.

Marvelous. Damn straight.

[joobz]

Actually, it speaks of inalienable HUMAN rights, determined by MEN, not gods. Sheesh, I know this and I'm not even American.
The greatly amusing fact to this whole argument is that NOWHERE in the constitution are any rights inaleinable. Rights are protected by the constitution, but the constitution can be changed. Indeed, THAT is one of the most important facts of the constitution. That is has provisions allowing for amendments to fit the needs of the changing populus.

If natural law (laws decreed by god) was indeed the central feature of the constitution, these laws would have been protected from any future change. Indeed, these laws would have been described in the main body of the text and not added on as the first 10 amendments.

Since it is clear, that these rights are NOT inaleinable, that the constitution allows for them to be changed and or/removed, then it stands to reason that the framers of the constitution did not view them as god-driven natural law let alone a prerequisite for being a good citizen in america.

[Foster Zygote]

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I cannot help but suspect that Stone Island is exaggerating. He asserts that the Declaration of Independence was the obvious choice for the establishment of the "less perfect Union" implied in the preamble to the Constitution, when any decent student of high school level US history would be able to argue convincingly that the Philadelphia convention was called to address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. He didn't even see the obvious problem that if the Declaration of Independence had indeed established the earlier "less perfect Union" that the complete omission of any language of natural rights from the Constitution implies that natural rights language was among the perceived mistakes that the "more perfect Union" was intended to correct.

[Foster Zygote]

I would suggest that anyone attempting to make an argument by citing a document, especially a graduate student writing a disseration, quote the specific material they feel cannot be summarized without either misrepresenting the quotation as their own words, or refer to the works of others with a link and/or footnote where a broader point owes support or its genesis to an earlier work.

I would suggest that person take pains to carefully structure their argument and show how their position is not merely a parroting of earlier authors, nor mere plagarism.

I would suggest that person use the experience of having their arguments rebutted on an internet forum as thoroughly as this consider the weak points of their work and revise, edit, or buttress their material accordingly.

I would suggest that person learn how to articulate their own thoughts.

Well met. I can't imagine that Stone Island's professors are any more fooled by his pretense than we are.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well met. I can't imagine that Stone Island's professors are any more fooled by his pretense than we are.

Thanks.

Honestly, I'm an undergraduate student soon to wrap up my degree. I don't feel remotely academically qualified to persue a PhD and yet this ninny claims to be in middle of getting one, but he can't even form a coherent argument? He'll be evicerated.

[Stone Island]

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Ha!

Thanks.

Honestly, I'm an undergraduate student soon to wrap up my degree. I don't feel remotely academically qualified to persue a PhD and yet this ninny claims to be in middle of getting one, but he can't even form a coherent argument? He'll be evicerated.

I wonder if you're not conflating a "coherent" argument with an argument you agree with. Graduate school will teach you that they're two very different things.

And I got a 100% scholarship (a stipend would have been nice)! And a 3.75 GPA at the end of it all (not really that impressive because if you don't know how it works by this level you're in the wrong line of work)! Is there no justice in the world?

:p

[ImaginalDisc]

Ha!



I wonder if you're not conflating a "coherent" argument with an argument you agree with. Graduate school will teach you that they're two very different things.

And I got a 100% scholarship (a stipend would have been nice)! And a 3.75 GPA at the end of it all (not really that impressive because if you don't know how it works by this level you're in the wrong line of work)! Is there no justice in the world?

:p


You make a habit of posting articles and linking to documents without composing an argument or comment yourself. You conflate unrelated issues, and you demonstrate an apalling lack of understanding of the fundamental structure of the Federal Government, the DoI, and the Constitution for someone so close to having a PhD in political science that I sincirely doubt you are qualified to attain that high academic honor. I hope for your sake your disseration is in some entirely unrelated subject, which might excuse your glaring ineptitude if one were in a charitable mood.

I, however, think you're either a liar or unable to distinguish the difference between reasoning towards a conclusion, and apologetics in the name of a position you cling to by faith. The later will not serve you well in academia.

I warn you that when you attempt to defend your disseration, honest acadmeics will not softball you. You will not be allowed to weasel or worm your way around points raised in criticisim or probing inquiry of your work. Unless you are in a rather low grade university, the rhetorical and debate skills you have demonstrated here would cause you to fail miserably in front of a high school debate team, much less a group of qualified academics.

[Stone Island]

Unless you are in a rather low grade university

Eh, only top 50. Hardly "lights out", I know.

[ImaginalDisc]

Eh, only top 50. Hardly "lights out", I know.

In that case I am much more likely to believe you're a liar than I am inclined to believe that a nitwit such as you could possibly get a PhD.

[Stone Island]

In that case I am much more likely to believe you're a liar than I am inclined to believe that a nitwit such as you could possibly get a PhD.

Well, I don't have a Ph.D. yet. I'm still ABD, old sport. Also, the qualification exams (6 hours each, written, one in Political Theory and one in American), which I had to pass before they let me start on my dissertation, were graded anonymously.

:D

I bet that just blows your mind.

[Foster Zygote]

You make a habit of posting articles and linking to documents without composing an argument or comment yourself. You conflate unrelated issues, and you demonstrate an apalling lack of understanding of the fundamental structure of the Federal Government, the DoI, and the Constitution for someone so close to having a PhD in political science that I sincirely doubt you are qualified to attain that high academic honor. I hope for your sake your disseration is in some entirely unrelated subject, which might excuse your glaring ineptitude if one were in a charitable mood.

I, however, think you're either a liar or unable to distinguish the difference between reasoning towards a conclusion, and apologetics in the name of a position you cling to by faith. The later will not serve you well in academia.

I warn you that when you attempt to defend your disseration, honest acadmeics will not softball you. You will not be allowed to weasel or worm your way around points raised in criticisim or probing inquiry of your work. Unless you are in a rather low grade university, the rhetorical and debate skills you have demonstrated here would cause you to fail miserably in front of a high school debate team, much less a group of qualified academics.

I doubt he'll learn much from his mistakes, not without a fundamental change in attitude anyway. His point in being here, in my opinion, seems to be to demonstrate how clever he believes himself to be. It's just a pissing contest to him and he views any admission of error as a sign of weakness. Acknowledging his errors does not serve his purpose of demonstrating his intellectual superiority. He isn't here to exchange ideas and broaden his knowledge, he's here to bestow the gift of his superior knowledge upon us. Even the subject of this very thread confirms this. On a forum with a large number of atheists he has the nerve to preach to us as to why we are morally inferior to others.

Truly clever people realize that errors are nothing to be ashamed of as long as one acknowledges and corrects them. I think it was Harlan Ellison who once stated "I hate it when I'm wrong, but I love it when I'm put straight". Without the ability to admit errors and endeavor to correct them Stone Island will always be severely limited in his ability to learn. His single minded focus on proving that he is not incorrect will blind him to just how foolish he makes himself appear.

[slingblade]

I'm done with this thread, as the OP put me on ignore and didn't even have the manners and maturity to tell me. And I'm returning the favor. I have manners and maturity, thanks.

[six7s]

Neuhaus never said that a atheist couldn't be a citizen

The stoopid... it burns

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?
by Richard John Neuhaus
Copyright (c) 1991 First Things (August/September 1991).
(http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738)It follows that an atheist could not be trusted to be a good citizen, and therefore could not be a citizen at all.

[Stone Island]

The stoopid... it burns

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?
by Richard John Neuhaus
Copyright (c) 1991 First Things (August/September 1991).
(http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738)

Context, my son:

But can a person who does not acknowledge that he is accountable to a truth higher than the self, external to the self, really be trusted? Locke and Rousseau, among many other worthies, thought not. However confused their theology, they were sure that the social contract was based upon nature, upon the way the world really is. Rousseau’s “civil religion” was apparently itself a social construct, but Locke was convinced that the fear of a higher judgment, even an eternal judgment, was essential to citizenship.

It follows that an atheist could not be trusted to be a good citizen, and therefore could not be a citizen at all. Locke is rightly celebrated as a champion of religious toleration, but not of irreligion. “Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God,” he writes in A Letter Concerning Toleration. “Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all.” The taking away of God dissolves all. Every text becomes pretext, every interpretation misinterpretation, and every oath a deceit.


What does it follow from? Locke and Rousseau.

What does Neuhaus write only a few paragraphs later, when speaking about America, and giving his opinion? Only this:

In such a nation, an atheist can be a citizen, but he cannot be a good citizen. A good citizen does more than abide by the laws. A good citizen is able to give an account, a morally compelling account, of the regime of which he is part. He is able to justify its defense against its enemies, and to convincingly recommend its virtues to citizens of the next generation so that they, in turn, can transmit the regime to citizens yet unborn. This regime of liberal democracy, of republican self-governance, is not self-evidently good and just. An account must be given. Reasons must be given. They must be reasons that draw authority from that which is higher than the self, from that which is external to the self, from that to which the self is ultimately obliged.

He also says this, in his conclusion:

An older form of atheism pitted reason against the knowledge of God. The newer atheism is the atheism of unreason. It is much the more dangerous because the more insidious. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of Americans—and, I believe, the majority of our intellectual elites, if put to the test—are not atheists of any of the varieties we have discussed. They believe that there are good reasons for this ordering of the civitas, reasons that have public purchase, reasons that go beyond contingent convenience, reasons that entail what is just, the laws of nature, and maybe even the will of God.

[Stone Island]

I'm done with this thread, as the OP put me on ignore and didn't even have the manners and maturity to tell me. And I'm returning the favor. I have manners and maturity, thanks.
FWIW, you're not on ignore.

[ImaginalDisc]

Context, my son:



What does it follow from? Locke and Rousseau.

What does Neuhaus write only a few paragraphs later, when speaking about America, and giving his opinion? Only this:



He also says this, in his conclusion:

So, not only does he conclude that atheists cannot be good citizens, he makes a baseless differentation between the atheism of previous generations, and recent atheism?

[six7s]

The stoopid... it burns

Mea culpa, I'm a quote miner!

Our great leader (aka the educator of our children) has just PMd me to point out that, a few paragraphs later, Neuheus does indeed contradict himself

Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?
by Richard John Neuhaus
Copyright (c) 1991 First Things (August/September 1991).
(http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5738)
It follows that an atheist could not be trusted to be a good citizen, and therefore could not be a citizen at all. <restOfParagraphSnipped/>

<wholeParagraphSnipped/>

<wholeParagraphSnipped/>

<wholeParagraphSnipped/>

<wholeParagraphSnipped/>

In such a nation, an atheist can be a citizen, but he cannot be a good citizen. <restOfParagraphSnipped/>

[joobz]

I wonder if you're not conflating a "coherent" argument with an argument you agree with. Graduate school will teach you that they're two very different things.Not at all.
I've seen many good arguments made for positions I am inherently opposed to. This isn't one of those cases. The Neuhaus arguement is laughably shallow. redefining terms because you want to doesn't change the original definition and therefore makes any conlusions drawn fallacious.

Again:
If I say,
Christian = Integers
Evil = Real Numbers
then the statement "All Christians are evil" is true using my terms. However, it doesn't mean that All christians are evil is true using the commonly accepted definitions.

And I got a 100% scholarship (a stipend would have been nice)! And a 3.75 GPA at the end of it all (not really that impressive because if you don't know how it works by this level you're in the wrong line of work)! Is there no justice in the world?

:p
I see no problem believing you are a grad student. It's just a bit suprising. I have to believe that it simply means you aren't presenting your best game here.

[Belz...]

"A good citizen does more than abide by the laws. A good citizen is able to give an account, a morally compelling account, of the regime of which he is part."

What does that mean, anyway ?

[joobz]

What does that mean, anyway ?
It means you must be an OT6 or higher to be a good citizen.

[cgordon]

Neither a communist nor an atheist cannot be a good citizen of the United States of America ...

False. In fact, an argument could be made that atheists can be better citizens, becuase they have no loyalties to churches, religions, popes, priests, pastors, or gods to interfere with their being good citizens.

Any theist who puts his or her god/religion/church/prophet/pope above citizenship has divided loyalties and cannot, then, be a 'good citizen.'

That makes about as much sense as the assertation that atheists can't be good citizens ...

[Stone Island]

Atheism, theism and natural law are metaphysical claims. Unless atheism is merely an expression of arbitrary preference in line with a preference for ice cream, it is a claim about the nature of the universe that must be justified. The same goes for theism and natural law naturally. An atheist qua atheist cannot consistently reject the claims of theism as unjustified and accept the claims of natural law as justified.

Obviously people are consistently inconsistent and believe and act in all sorts of ways, no matter how much they violate their otherwise strongly held principles.

[ImaginalDisc]

Atheism, theism and natural law are metaphysical claims.

False, amusingly, so.

Athiesm is merely the lack of belief in god(s.) It is not a metaphysical claim, it's a restraint from making a claim.

Unless atheism is merely an expression of arbitrary preference in line with a preference for ice cream, it is a claim about the nature of the universe that must be justified.

You're forgetting where the burden of proof lies. I no more need to justify my atheism than I need to justify my aleprechaunism.

The same goes for theism and natural law naturally. An atheist qua atheist cannot consistently reject the claims of theism as unjustified and accept the claims of natural law as justified.

If by "natural law" you mean the physical laws of the universe, I see no conflict between atheism and accepting what science has to offer. I do, however, see a conflict between accepting non-scientific claims based on faith and accepting science.

[Stone Island]

False. In fact, an argument could be made that atheists can be better citizens, becuase they have no loyalties to churches, religions, popes, priests, pastors, or gods to interfere with their being good citizens.

Any theist who puts his or her god/religion/church/prophet/pope above citizenship has divided loyalties and cannot, then, be a 'good citizen.'

That makes about as much sense as the assertation that atheists can't be good citizens ...

Play that line of thought out for a bit. It seems to me that if what you're saying is true, then any loyalties or associations that are to any entity other than the state are cause for inability to be a good citizen.

What other loyalties do we have?

To our families.
To our children.
To our parents.
To our clubs.
To our sports teams.
To our communities.
To our states.

In the Republic Socrates talks about a community of women and children so that man's loyalty to his family will be instead directed at the state.

Did you ever read Bowling Alone by Putnam or the study it was based on? If I remember correctly, it argued that people who were less active in their communities, who had weaker ties to groups, communities, churches, family, etc..., were less likely to be active civic participants. Unfortunately, I don't have the data here in front of me, but I do remember that his hypothesis was fairly well supported.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Theism is a social construct. Natural law is a social construct.

I can however choose to value some rights as if they were naturally given to everyone, and try to follow them to best of my ability. I can also choose to believe in some supernatural entity, but I don’t. I find that to be unnecessary and ludicrous.

[ImaginalDisc]

[quote]In the Republic Socrates talks about a community of women and children so that man's loyalty to his family will be instead directed at the state.

And in Dorothy and Wizard of Oz there's a community of people made of wood who live in a magically lighted cavern underground.

Citing a fictitious civilization nets nothing.

[joobz]

Atheism, theism and natural law are metaphysical claims. Unless atheism is merely an expression of arbitrary preference in line with a preference for ice cream, it is a claim about the nature of the universe that must be justified. The same goes for theism and natural law naturally. An atheist qua atheist cannot consistently reject the claims of theism as unjustified and accept the claims of natural law as justified.

Obviously people are consistently inconsistent and believe and act in all sorts of ways, no matter how much they violate their otherwise strongly held principles.
To put it another way, because someone is willing to beleive in one, unrelated unsubstantiated story, then they can believe in any kind of unsubstantiated story. And since we need to believe in a unsubstantiated story for our government's charter to be valid, you can't be a good citizen if you don't believe in some unrelated unsubstantiated story.

[ImaginalDisc]

To put it another way, because someone is willing to beleive in one, unrelated unsubstantiated story, then they can believe in any kind of unsubstantiated story. And since we need to believe in a unsubstantiated story for our government's charter to be valid, you can't be a good citizen if you don't believe in some unrelated unsubstantiated story.

If that's a fair summary, I still think it's incorrect. The assumption that we have natural rights might be - and I think is - a fiction. But, by building a society around that fictions everyone benefits. I don't have to believe that everyone really does have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to devote my energies to ensuring those rights are protected in perpetuity. Stone Island has failed to show that you must believe theistic lies in order to accept the ground rules of a society.

[Stone Island]

And in Dorothy and Wizard of Oz there's a community of people made of wood who live in a magically lighted cavern underground.

Citing a fictitious civilization nets nothing.

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what it is you're trying to say. cgordon made a point that a theist's ties to her religion might cause her to be less tied or loyal to her country. I pointed out that someone much, much smarter than any of us here had already thought of that and put it in its strongest possible form, to the point where even families were sacrificed in the cause of loyalty to the state. I don't suppose we have to take cgordon's point quite that far, but it is, I think, instructive when we do. It raises the question of where to draw the line, right?

To put it another way, because someone is willing to beleive in one, unrelated unsubstantiated story, then they can believe in any kind of unsubstantiated story. And since we need to believe in a unsubstantiated story for our government's charter to be valid, you can't be a good citizen if you don't believe in some unrelated unsubstantiated story.

Do we live in a world where theistic claims make sense or not? (Actually two questions: are religious claims meaningful, i.e., do they have truth value, and, if so, are they true?) Neuhaus argues that while there was a tradition of atheism that accepted that religious claims had truth value, even if they in the end found that value to be false, modern atheism denies the meaningfulness of religious language. If religious claims are meaningful but false, then natural rights claims may be meaningful but true. If religious claims are meaningless, and thus neither true nor false, then natural law claims are meaningless as well. That's why an atheist can't be a good citizen, because the philosophy that justifies the very moral/political foundation of her country is, to her, nothing more than possibly salutary, altogether unsubstantiated woo.

Maybe an atheist could be a good citizen of some other sort of country, maybe one founded on a principle of utilitarianism or something. But they can't be a good citizen of a natural rights republic because they reject as unsubstantiated the transcendent truth of natural rights.

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what it is you're trying to say. cgordon made a point that a theist's ties to her religion might cause her to be less tied or loyal to her country. I pointed out that someone much, much smarter than any of us here had already thought of that and put it in its strongest possible form, to the point where even families were sacrificed in the cause of loyalty to the state. I don't suppose we have to take cgordon's point quite that far, but it is, I think, instructive when we do. It raises the question of where to draw the line, right?

No, it doesn't. Firstly, you cited Plato's Republic, which means nothing. We're talking about reality, not fiction. Secondly, even if we accept your assertion that theists tend to be better citizens, it fails to support the premise that atheists cannot be good citizens. If you're really trying to argue the former then you are moving the goalposts.

[Stone Island]

Firstly, you cited Plato's Republic, which means nothing.

What do you mean, "means nothing"?

[ImaginalDisc]

What do you mean, "means nothing"?

It's not an experiment, or research. It's not science, it's fiction. If you can cite Plato's Republic, I can cite The Wizard of Oz.

[joobz]

Do we live in a world where theistic claims make sense or not? (Actually two questions: are religious claims meaningful, i.e., do they have truth value, and, if so, are they true?) Neuhaus argues that while there was a tradition of atheism that accepted that religious claims had truth value, even if they in the end found that value to be false, modern atheism denies the meaningfulness of religious language. If religious claims are meaningful but false, then natural rights claims may be meaningful but true. If religious claims are meaningless, and thus neither true nor false, then natural law claims are meaningless as well. That's why an atheist can't be a good citizen, because the philosophy that justifies the very moral/political foundation of her country is, to her, nothing more than possibly salutary, altogether unsubstantiated woo.
you've simply reaffirmed my summary.





Maybe an atheist could be a good citizen of some other sort of country, maybe one founded on a principle of utilitarianism or something. But they can't be a good citizen of a natural rights republic because they reject as unsubstantiated the transcendent truth of natural rights.
This is such a shift of argument, that you are indeed contradicting your original premise that of "atheists can't be good citizens in ANY government."

check to page one, and you'll see multiple people having said, "It depends on the government." But, you (or neuhaus) were contending that actions weren't important but a belief in the state principles (i'm paraphrasing here). And you attributed saying that atheists can't believe in something more than themselves(e.g., the state principles) and therefore can't be good citizens. Foster Zygote (among others) proved this assertion wrong and now you admit that atheists can indeed believe in something more than themselves.

You've admited then that atheists can believe in something more than themselves (although you are only permitting utalitarianism for now) and are therefore capable of being good citizens of some government form. As such, your original claim, "atheists can't be good citizens" was proven false.


We now need to address your most recent assertion, that atheist can't be good citizens in a natural law republic. I do not have time right now to take this over, but suffice to say that I think this is also false for the simple reason that belief in axiomatic governing principles does not require belief in a god. But I can expand upon this alter.

So, shall we admit that this is where we currently stand in the argument?

[joobz]

If that's a fair summary, I still think it's incorrect. The assumption that we have natural rights might be - and I think is - a fiction. But, by building a society around that fictions everyone benefits. I don't have to believe that everyone really does have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to devote my energies to ensuring those rights are protected in perpetuity. Stone Island has failed to show that you must believe theistic lies in order to accept the ground rules of a society.
I too think it's incorrect. I thought by displaying it in those general terms would better display the error in reasoning.

we can accept axioms to live by without needing to believe these axioms came from a magical source.

[six7s]

So, shall we admit that this is where we currently stand in the argument?

I think the following pic illustrates where we stand... http://www.thefeltsource.com/FTBillyGoatsGruffLarge.gif
It seems to me that the OP has been influenced by fables that assign undue (i.e. > 0) importance to some nebulous and artificial constructs that are ambiguously labelled 'citizenship' that are, by some apparently circular reasoning, accessible only to those who accept, promote and can give a 'morally compelling account' of the nebulous and artificial constructs that are ambiguously labelled 'citizenship'... repeat × 2, rinse...

I have a hunch that the OP wants/needs to believe that we need some stamp of approval in a fairytale passport, issued by some self-important and imaginary clerical worker, in order to gain access to some mythical land of milk and honey

Whereas in the RealWorld™ bridging the 'divide' is unnecessary, simply because it doesn't exist... so we can stand (and walk, run etc.) anywhere we damn well please

[Stone Island]

you've simply reaffirmed my summary.

This is such a shift of argument, that you are indeed contradicting your original premise that of "atheists can't be good citizens in ANY government."

check to page one, and you'll see multiple people having said, "It depends on the government." But, you (or neuhaus) were contending that actions weren't important but a belief in the state principles (i'm paraphrasing here). And you attributed saying that atheists can't believe in something more than themselves(e.g., the state principles) and therefore can't be good citizens. Foster Zygote (among others) proved this assertion wrong and now you admit that atheists can indeed believe in something more than themselves.

You've admited then that atheists can believe in something more than themselves (although you are only permitting utalitarianism for now) and are therefore capable of being good citizens of some government form. As such, your original claim, "atheists can't be good citizens" was proven false.


We now need to address your most recent assertion, that atheist can't be good citizens in a natural law republic. I do not have time right now to take this over, but suffice to say that I think this is also false for the simple reason that belief in axiomatic governing principles does not require belief in a god. But I can expand upon this alter.

So, shall we admit that this is where we currently stand in the argument?

Joobz,

Actions aren't sufficient. The important question is whether those actions are justified or arbitrary.

Any particular atheist can believe any number of things, the real question is atheist qua atheist. Can an atheist qua atheist justify any particular fishing they do in the murky water of values (to steal Heidegger's metaphor).

I suppose that I am trying to avoid a discussion of any particular individual's psychology; we're all hypocrites in one way or another. That's why I refused to comment on those examples and wanted to avoid a discussion of my opinion. It's the larger question of what's meaningful and true that interests me more.

Can atheists have a justified, true belief in something more than themselves?

And I do see your point, though it raises the question: can any kind of government, other than a natural rights republic, be seen to be good? One cannot, as I said before, be a good citizen of a country that isn't itself good. Is a utilitarian form of government good in the common use of the word?

Does a belief in a natural rights republic require the kind of belief that, like belief in a God or gods, an atheist must reject? I think so.

By the by, from a utilitarian point of view, countries that are more religious tend to have citizens who are happier and wealthier. I can site the studies. Obviously, someone is going to scream "correlation isn't causation" which is fair, but that's social science for you.

[ImaginalDisc]

Joobz,

Actions aren't sufficient. The important question is whether those actions are justified or arbitrary.

Any particular atheist can believe any number of things, the real question is atheist qua atheist. Can an atheist qua atheist justify any particular fishing they do in the murky water of values (to steal Heidegger's metaphor).


This is one of the most absurd displays of the refusal to think a proposition through I have ever read. Let us assume that there is a God, this god is interested in human affairs, and all morals and value stem from his will.

How does that make those values any less arbitrary than the values we make ourselves? You have merely transfered the responsability for devising values to a magical being. The values remain the product of a decision.

This is entirely seperate from the fact that theists, who may indeed believe that god makes values, choose which god to believe in from a vast smorgasboard, and even within religions, there are intense debates over whether god is offended more by this or that thing.

All values are abritrary.

[Stone Island]

I too think it's incorrect. I thought by displaying it in those general terms would better display the error in reasoning.

we can accept axioms to live by without needing to believe these axioms came from a magical source.

Except that natural rights aren't axioms, or they aren't meant to be axioms, they're supposed to be true, real, and operative.

[ImaginalDisc]

Except that natural rights aren't axioms, or they aren't meant to be axioms, they're supposed to be true, real, and operative.

Are they? According to whom? Anyone who says that must attempt to back it up logically, and there is no evidence that there are are universal and immutable natural rights.

Rights are a social construct.

[Stone Island]

This is one of the most absurd displays of the refusal to think a proposition through I have ever read. Let us assume that there is a God, this god is interested in human affairs, and all morals and value stem from his will.

How does that make those values any less arbitrary than the values we make ourselves? You have merely transfered the responsability for devising values to a magical being. The values remain the product of a decision.

This is entirely seperate from the fact that theists, who may indeed believe that god makes values, choose which god to believe in from a vast smorgasboard, and even within religions, there are intense debates over whether god is offended more by this or that thing.

All values are abritrary.

You keep misunderstanding the argument.

Natural rights aren't supposed to be values in that sense, they're supposed to be true (see the Euthyphro by Plato for more information on this argument), transcendent, and imperative.

How is "natural rights" talk more meaningful, i.e., less arbitrary, than "God or gods" talk?

[Foster Zygote]

Except that natural rights aren't axioms, or they aren't meant to be axioms, they're supposed to be true, real, and operative.

Weren't the gods of Olympus meant to be true, real, and operative?

[ImaginalDisc]

You keep misunderstanding the argument.

Natural rights aren't supposed to be values in that sense, they're supposed to be true (see the Euthyphro by Plato for more information on this argument), transcendent, and imperative.

How is "natural rights" talk more meaningful, i.e., less arbitrary, than "God or gods" talk?

They're "supposed to be?" That's nice. The question is whether they actually are. there is no uniformity of morality or the recognition of rights across time, across different cultures, religions, or ethnic groups, or even within those very same groups.


There is not the slightest hint that rights are innate and immutable.

As a matter of fact, I'm very glad that rights are a social construct, and can shift and change. If we had been forever saddled with the morality of a certain Bronze Age collection of nomadic tribes we would murder people who disagreed with us about religion, murder adulterers, keep slaves, and in general act like baboons with a bipedal locomotion.

Whatever you may think you're saying, you cannot show that rights actually are derived from some pillar of perfection, or innate and unchanging. Those of us who aren't blinded by your style of lie-to-one's-self faith can see that rights, like laws, music, clothing styles, and taboos, are social constructs and though they are imperfect and man-made, there are people - atheist and theist alike - who daily struggle to improve society either by changing the rights we recognize or by preserving them from change.

[Foster Zygote]

You keep misunderstanding the argument.

Natural rights aren't supposed to be values in that sense, they're supposed to be true (see the Euthyphro by Plato for more information on this argument), transcendent, and imperative.
Right, just like so many other religious claims of TRUTHtm

How is "natural rights" talk more meaningful, i.e., less arbitrary, than "God or gods" talk?
It ain't.

[Stone Island]

Are they? According to whom? Anyone who says that must attempt to back it up logically, and there is no evidence that there are are universal and immutable natural rights.

Rights are a social construct.

Exactly my point: no scientific evidence. Natural rights fail the verificationist theory of meaning.

Are they merely a fancy way of saying, "I prefer". If they are merely a social contract then they aren't natural, they aren't universal, they aren't transcendent, and shooting people in their defense seems odd.

We have no way of judging between cannibal and natural rights societies other than what we prefer.

While it would be a fallacy to argue from consequence, I think it's clear that most of us would prefer the latter, and we have to realize that we don't have any non-arbitrary argument to back up our preferences.

[Belz...]

Atheism, theism and natural law are metaphysical claims.

Atheism is a non-claim. Get your facts straight.

[Belz...]

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what it is you're trying to say. cgordon made a point that a theist's ties to her religion might cause her to be less tied or loyal to her country. I pointed out that someone much, much smarter than any of us here had already thought of that and put it in its strongest possible form, to the point where even families were sacrificed in the cause of loyalty to the state.

How was Plato smarter than any of us ?

[Belz...]

Joobz,

Actions aren't sufficient. The important question is whether those actions are justified or arbitrary.

Who cares ? A justification IS arbitrary, anyway.

Seriously, who cares WHY people do what they do, so long as they do it ?

[Foster Zygote]

Exactly my point: no scientific evidence. Natural rights fail the verificationist theory of meaning.

Are they merely a fancy way of saying, "I prefer". If they are merely a social contract then they aren't natural, they aren't universal, they aren't transcendent, and shooting people in their defense seems odd.

We have no way of judging between cannibal and natural rights societies other than what we prefer.

While it would be a fallacy to argue from consequence, I think it's clear that most of us would prefer the latter, and we have to realize that we don't have any non-arbitrary argument to back up our preferences.

I've seen much goal-post moving on this forum, not nearly so many own goals.

[Belz...]

Exactly my point: no scientific evidence. Natural rights fail the verificationist theory of meaning.

Are they merely a fancy way of saying, "I prefer".

Precisely. ALL are arbitrary. Thanks for playing.

If they are merely a social contract then they aren't natural, they aren't universal, they aren't transcendent

Few things are.

We have no way of judging between cannibal and natural rights societies other than what we prefer.

Yes, we do, because judgment is BASED on values.

[KingMerv00]

Bailed out of this thread a little while back. Is SI still using "proof by sleight of hand"?

Behold as this elephant vanishes before your very eyes!

Disclaimer:
By "this elephant", I mean "a shrew in Brazil". By "vanish", I mean "poops". By "your very eyes", I mean "on video I recorded 3 weeks ago"...but you can behold it for really reals.

[godless dave]

Joobz,

Actions aren't sufficient. The important question is whether those actions are justified or arbitrary.

Why is that an important question? Why aren't actions sufficient?



One cannot, as I said before, be a good citizen of a country that isn't itself good.

You said it before, and you were wrong. You're confusing two distinct meanings of the word "good".

When you modify the noun "citizen" with the adjective "good", you get a noun phrase which means "someone who is good at being a citizen". This meaning of "good" does not refer to morality, it refers to competence.

When you ask if a country is "good", you are asking a moral question.

A good citizen of Nazi Germany is someone who advances Nazi ideals; someone who advances Nazi ideals is a bad person. A good citizen of Nazi Germany would be a bad person.



Does a belief in a natural rights republic require the kind of belief that, like belief in a God or gods, an atheist must reject?

What does it mean to "believe in" a republic? Believe it exists? The United States exists; I'm sitting in the northern section of it right now. Our government exists; I can watch them on C-SPAN. Our constitution and laws exist; I can look them up online. Being an atheist does not require me to reject all that evidence.


By the by, from a utilitarian point of view, countries that are more religious tend to have citizens who are happier and wealthier. I can site the studies.

Please do because I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Iran and Yemen are quite a bit less wealthy and less happy than Norway or France.

You keep misunderstanding the argument.

Natural rights aren't supposed to be values in that sense, they're supposed to be true (see the Euthyphro by Plato for more information on this argument), transcendent, and imperative.


We're not misunderstanding the argument, we're disagreeing with the argument. I, and I imagine the other posters here, completely reject the idea that the US Constitution rests on the belief that rights are true, transcendent, and imperative.

[godless dave]

There is not the slightest hint that rights are innate and immutable.

As a matter of fact, I'm very glad that rights are a social construct, and can shift and change. If we had been forever saddled with the morality of a certain Bronze Age collection of nomadic tribes we would murder people who disagreed with us about religion, murder adulterers, keep slaves, and in general act like baboons with a bipedal locomotion.

And I'm glad we're not forever saddled with the morality of the people who wrote the US Constitution, because then women would still not have the vote, I myself wouldn't have gotten the vote until 7 years ago when I first moved out of a rental property and bought a house, and slavery would still be legal.

Fortunately, those authors recognized that concepts of human rights could change, and included in the Constitution a process for changing it.


Whatever you may think you're saying, you cannot show that rights actually are derived from some pillar of perfection, or innate and unchanging. Those of us who aren't blinded by your style of lie-to-one's-self faith can see that rights, like laws, music, clothing styles, and taboos, are social constructs and though they are imperfect and man-made, there are people - atheist and theist alike - who daily struggle to improve society either by changing the rights we recognize or by preserving them from change.

QFT.

[godless dave]

Exactly my point: no scientific evidence. Natural rights fail the verificationist theory of meaning.

Are they merely a fancy way of saying, "I prefer".

For the thousandth time, yes.


If they are merely a social contract then they aren't natural, they aren't universal, they aren't transcendent,

Exactly.


and shooting people in their defense seems odd.


Why does it seem odd? Something doesn't have to be natural, universal, or transcendent for people to value it.


We have no way of judging between cannibal and natural rights societies other than what we prefer.

That's correct.


While it would be a fallacy to argue from consequence, I think it's clear that most of us would prefer the latter, and we have to realize that we don't have any non-arbitrary argument to back up our preferences.

On the contrary, we have thousands of years worth of non-arbitrary arguments to back up our preferences.

[Stone Island]

Please do because I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Iran and Yemen are quite a bit less wealthy and less happy than Norway or France.

Re: wealth:

Barro, Robert J. and Rachel M. McCleary, "Religion and Economic Growth across Countries" in American Sociological Review, Vol. 68, No. 5. (Oct. 2003), pp. 760-781.

or, the working paper at his web page (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/files/Religion_and_Economic_Growth.pdf).

Just one for now. Obviously, it's social science, so a high degree of correlation is the best you can hope for. But interesting none the less.

I'm still looking for the paper that showed in a cross national study that highly religious people were more generally satisfied with their lives. It's been a while since I read it.

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm still looking for the paper that showed in a cross national study that highly religious people were more generally satisfied with their lives. It's been a while since I read it.


Utterly irrelevant, even if true.

For the sake of argement, let's concede your point. Let's say religious people tend to be nicer, happier, better adjusted, more charitable, and have whiter teeth. Would that answer your question, "Can atheists be good citizens?

No, it would not answer that question.

Try to focus.

[KingMerv00]

Utterly irrelevant, even if true.

For the sake of argement, let's concede your point. Let's say religious people tend to be nicer, happier, better adjusted, more charitable, and have whiter teeth. Would that answer your question, "Can atheists be good citizens?

No, it would not answer that question.

Try to focus.

Just to state the obvious...even if true, theism would still be groundless.

[NobbyNobbs]

Who decides what's arbitrary or not ?

Let's flip a coin to see who decides.

[ImaginalDisc]

Just to state the obvious...even if true, theism would still be groundless.

Stone Island just sent me a PM saying he's going to "plonk" me. That's either code for "ignore" or ****. In the later case, he's not my type. If it's the former, he's a coward.

[six7s]

Atheism, theism and natural law are metaphysical claims.
Atheism is a non-claim. Get your facts straight.

Priceless (http://public.fotki.com/six7s/humour/master-p4wn.html)

[six7s]

Stone Island just sent me a PM saying he's going to "plonk" me. That's either code for "ignore" or ****. In the later case, he's not my type. If it's the former, he's a coward.

I too have received such a PM from the 'educator of our children'

If it's the latter, he's in for a very rude surprise

Either way, he's a coward - as demonstrated in his bully-boy tactics

[joobz]

Joobz,

Actions aren't sufficient. The important question is whether those actions are justified or arbitrary.
That's a mere assertion. (using admittedly vauge terms) You can do good things for bad reasons, and be rewarded by society for those things. You can also do bad things for good reasons, and be punished accordingly. Society reacts to the actions not the thoughts. We will sometimes excuse bad actions for right reasons, but we do not punish good things for wrong reasons.

As I said before, until thought crimes become a reality, good citizenry is defined by action not thought.
I suppose that I am trying to avoid a discussion of any particular individual's psychology; we're all hypocrites in one way or another. That's why I refused to comment on those examples and wanted to avoid a discussion of my opinion. It's the larger question of what's meaningful and true that interests me more.
This is irrelevant. Saying you hold to a set of governing axioms because they work in your best interests is not hypocritical or inconsistent. You keep attempting to create a staw-atheist and claim that atheists in general can't be good. This is just bizarre.

Can atheists have a justified, true belief in something more than themselves?yes. See ALL of FZ's posts.


And I do see your point, though it raises the question: can any kind of government, other than a natural rights republic, be seen to be good? One cannot, as I said before, be a good citizen of a country that isn't itself good. Is a utilitarian form of government good in the common use of the word?That wasn't your point and you keep shifting it.

Many atheists are secular humanists. Why not ask if secular humanist is a good form of government?

Does a belief in a natural rights republic require the kind of belief that, like belief in a God or gods, an atheist must reject? I think so.
You can believe in axioms that fit the natural law that you keep refering to. As such, atheists can indeed believe in it.

By the by, from a utilitarian point of view, countries that are more religious tend to have citizens who are happier and wealthier. I can site the studies. Obviously, someone is going to scream "correlation isn't causation" which is fair, but that's social science for you.
No, I'll just scream that your source doesn't say that.
from "working paper at his web pagehttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.26/t.gif (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/files/Religion_and_Economic_Growth.pdf)."
For instance...


The data reveal an overall pattern in which economic development is associated with less religiosity, measured by church attendance or religious beliefs.


less religion = more economic development...

and



Table 2 shows marginally significant negative relations between church

attendance and life expectancy. The estimated coefficient of 2.2 (s.e.=1.2) in column 1
means that a fall in the reciprocal of life expectancy by 0.08 (its sample standard
deviation) is associated with lower monthly church attendance by about 4 percentage
points.





less church attendance = longer life..


Although to be fair, the paper does explain that the elderly do believe in religion more, which contradicts this finding. As you said, correlation and causation aren't the same thing.

But I'll leave you with this bit as well.





Finally, the inverse association between urbanization and church attendance is consistent with the view that church services have to compete in urban areas with many other leisure activities, such as museums, theatres, and political organizations. A possible explanation for this urban/rural pattern is that economies of scale are important for many

social organizations but are less significant for houses of worship. Even sparsely populated rural towns can sustain a local congregation.




in other words, when people have other fun things to do, they don't go to church. That seems rather contrary to your claims.


Well, after that little sidepoint, which has no real bearing on the argument, I ask that you answer my question below.


You've admited then that atheists can believe in something more than themselves (although you are only permitting utalitarianism for now) and are therefore capable of being good citizens of some government form. As such, your original claim, "atheists can't be good citizens" was proven false.
...

So, shall we admit that this is where we currently stand in the argument?




It is difficult to move a discussion forward until we agree upon what we are discussing. If you agree, than we can move forward into discussing why atheists could be good in a natural rights republic.

[Foster Zygote]

Stone Island just sent me a PM saying he's going to "plonk" me. That's either code for "ignore" or ****. In the later case, he's not my type. If it's the former, he's a coward.

I agree. His unwillingness to admit error seems to me to be almost pathological.

[Foster Zygote]

Are they merely a fancy way of saying, "I prefer". If they are merely a social contract then they aren't natural...

How are they not natural? How is human behavior not natural?

[godless dave]

Let me see if I can break down a couple terms here.

A skeptic, broadly speaking, is someone who tries to base all statements of fact on evidence.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of any gods.

The atheists I think Stone Island is talking about are members of both of the above sets. They are atheists because they are skeptics. If anyone wants a Venn diagram let me know and I'll throw one together.

The laws of nature are descriptions of how nature behaves. Force equals mass times acceleration. First law of thermodynamics.

One thing to note about these laws is that they are always true. Raindrops don't have a choice about how to fall to the ground. They don't have the option of breaking the laws of motion with the risk of suffering punishment later. They have to fall at a certain rate of acceleration in a certain direction. If the wind blows on them, they don't get to decide whether to comply with the wind's demands.

So we can make statements of fact about the laws of nature, and we can support these statements with scientific evidence. If you were to ask me, a skeptic atheist, if I believe in gravity, I'd say yes, I believe gravity exists and it behaves in a certain way.

Human rights are, broadly speaking, concepts about how humans should behave relative to other humans. People have made statements about these concepts at various times throughout the history of humanity.

We can definitely make a statement of fact that humans have discussed the concept of human rights. We can also state the fact that different humans have made different statements about what they think those rights are or should be, and about how governments should behave with regard to those rights. Those are all facts.

Stone Island is discussing whether the statements made about human rights are statements of fact. If someone says, "People should have the right to speak freely" or "people should have the right to seek a redress of grievances from the people who govern them", are they stating a fact about nature itself, or are they stating an opinion about how they think humans should live?

If they are stating a fact about nature, then there is no way to verify whether it's true. The are no scientific tests you can carry out to determine whether a particular government is more in accord with nature than any other. These "natural rights" aren't like the laws of nature studied by science, because humans have a choice about whether to recognize them or not. If they were laws of nature, we wouldn't have a choice about how to behave with regard to them.

The only fact statements we can make are the ones I have a couple paragraphs above. So if you were to ask me, a skeptic atheist, if I "believe in" human rights, I would answer yes, I know human beings have formulated a concept of the rights each human should have, and I believe governments that operate based on that concept are more likely to allow their citizens to live freely while protecting them from other people, which is what I value in a government. But it doesn't make sense to talk about human rights using scientific language, any more than it would make sense to talk about the laws of motion in the language of morality and ethics.

[ImaginalDisc]

How are they not natural? How is human behavior not natural?

I was wondering that myself. We see play, recreational sex, infanticide, deception, cooperation, retribution, altruism and all manner of things humans variously consider good and evil all over the animal kingdom. There's nothing we do which I can'y think of which some animal somewhere does not also do in a similar way - besides express abstract concepts.

[Darth Rotor]

The laws of nature are descriptions of how nature behaves. Force equals mass times acceleration. First law of thermodynamics.
*shuffles through old notes*

Isn't that the one that states that "The Universe sucks?" (Nature abhors a vacuum) (I stretch too hard at times for a laugh, I know.)
Human rights are, broadly speaking, concepts about how humans should behave relative to other humans. People have made statements about these concepts at various times throughout the history of humanity.
I'll counter, in a slight digression, that human rights are at best wishful thinking unless regularly backed up by will, force and/or significant leverage of some sort. Believing in human rights (quote mine from below, admitted) is a dangerous step toward the dreaded magical thinking so frequently chided here. Danger Will Robinson! :eek:
We can definitely make a statement of fact that humans have discussed the concept of human rights.
So much so that I'd like that discussion added to the possible causes of global warming. :D
These "natural rights" aren't like the laws of nature studied by science, because humans have a choice about whether to recognize them or not. If they were laws of nature, we wouldn't have a choice about how to behave with regard to them.
*claps*
But it doesn't make sense to talk about human rights using scientific language, any more than it would make sense to talk about the laws of motion in the language of morality and ethics.
*stands and applauds

May I interrupt this excellent discussion to ask Stone Island the following PhD level question?

Hey, Stone, can an atheist be a good citizen? Your own opinion.

Please.

Thanks.

(Crib sheet previously provided in post #9)

DR

[cgordon]

Play that line of thought out for a bit. It seems to me that if what you're saying is true, then any loyalties or associations that are to any entity other than the state are cause for inability to be a good citizen.

Not exactly. That's what YOU seem to be saying. I'm saying by your criteria, that a theist who puts religion before country ain't a good citizen.

Me, I've served in the military, got a small collection of injuries and a few artificial parts due to that, I pay taxes, I support my community, state and nation, I volunteer, I give, I help others, I am proud of my nation -- proud enough to call foul when it does stupid things, and I try to live my life in such a way as to be a credit to my family, friends, students, co-workers, neighbors and to my country. I'm also an atheist.

Anyone claiming that I'm not a good citizen is wrong. Flatly so. And they're displaying a certain stupidity (willful ignorance), that tells ME that they're probably promoting a version of citizenship that has some severe and debilitating limitations.

[six7s]

May I interrupt this excellent discussion to ask Stone Island the following PhD level question?

Hey, Stone, can an atheist be a good citizen? Your own opinion.

NB SI: ABD PhD

Does that mean he has yet to get his just desserts?

Anyhoo... as PhD -level might induce one of them interweb head-asplode moments, how about this:

Hey, Stone, can an atheist be a good citizen? An opinion espoused by anyone other than Neuhaus.

[Stone Island]

As I said before, until thought crimes become a reality, good citizenry is defined by action not thought.

This is irrelevant. Saying you hold to a set of governing axioms because they work in your best interests is not hypocritical or inconsistent. You keep attempting to create a staw-atheist and claim that atheists in general can't be good. This is just bizarre.


I was just leafing through my copy of Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification and I found this line:

It could be argued from a more inclusive utilitarian perspective, however, that the decision to base belief on beneficial reasons is problematic. Maintaining one's belief in the light of clearly negative evidence because of the benefits that result could have a profound effect on one's entire belief system. Indeed, in order to keep a system of beliefs intact in the face of negative evidence, it may be necessary to change other beliefs in the system that in turn have profound and damaging psychological effects. Moreover, if change in a belief system is allowed when there is a clearly worthwhile social goal, it could set a precedent for change when there is no obvious and immediate social benefit. Further, one person's example might induce others to maintain or change their beliefs for the slightest whim or the most selfish motive.

It is perhaps because of the potentially dangerous implications of believing for beneficial rather than epistemic reasons that some philosophers have argued that it is always morally wrong to believe in anything unless one has adequate epistemic reasons.

From Barro (pg. 779), and I'm quoting the version published in American Sociological Review, which obviously differs from yours,

Our results show that, for given religious
beliefs, increases in church attendance tend
to reduce economic growth. In contrast, for
given levels of church attendance, increases
in some religious beliefs-notably belief in
hell, heaven, and an afterlife-tend to increase
economic growth. There is some indication
that the fear of hell is more potent
for economic growth than is the prospect of
heaven.
We stress that these patterns of growth effects
apply when we control for reverse caufrom
the one plotted on the x-axis. We then normalized
the resulting value to have a mean of
zero-hence, the average value of the variable on
the y-axis is not meaningful. The line shown in
each diagram is a least-squares fit between the
variable on the y-axis and the one on the x-axis.
sation by using the instrumental variables
suggested by our analysis of the determinants
of religiosity. The results remain intact
when we enter the composition of religious
adherence into the growth equations. Based
on the arguable exogeneity of the instrumental
variables, we think our estimates reflect
causal influences from religion to economic
growth, rather than the reverse.
Our conjecture is that stronger religious
beliefs stimulate growth because they help
sustain specific individual behaviors that enhance
productivity. An interesting extension
of our study would examine the links between
religious beliefs and individual behaviors
or values, such as those we previously
mentioned: honesty, thrift, work ethic, and
openness to strangers. These characteristics
can be measured using survey responses in
the World Values Survey and the International
Social Survey Programme.
We argue that higher levels of church attendance
depress economic growth because
greater attendance signifies a larger use of
resources by the religion sector, and the
main output of this sector (the religious beliefs)
has already been held constant. The results
do not mean that greater church attendance
has a net negative influence on economic
growth-this net effect depends on
the extent to which an increase in attendance
leads to stronger beliefs, which in turn encourage
growth. Thus, another interesting
extension of our study would be to estimate
the influence of church attendance on religious
beliefs.

[Stone Island]

My wife acts as if she really loves me. She does everything you would expect from someone who loves someone else.

But, is acting as if she loved me the same as loving me?

[Stone Island]

James Otis expressed the essential belief of the founding generation when he writes that Kings and Parliaments cannot give...

the rights essential for happiness. We claim them from a higher source--from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth. They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature. They are born with use; exist with us; and cannot be taken from us by any human power without taking our lives. In short, they are founded on the immutable maxims of reason and justice.


Quoted in Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution pg. 187.

On the next page Bailyn writes,

Ultimately, the conclusion to be drawn became obvious: the entire legitimacy of positive law and legal rights must be understood to rest on the degree to which they conformed to the abstract universals of natural rights. Not all were willing, even in 1775, to go as far as Alexander Hamilton, wrote in bold, arresting words that "the sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." But if some found this statement too enthusiastic, few by 1774... disagreed with the calmer formulation of the same idea, by Phillip Livingston... Legal rights are "those rights which we are entitled to by the eternal laws of right reason"; they exist independent of positive law, and stand as the measure of its legitimacy.

[joobz]

I was just leafing through my copy of Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification and I found this line:



From Barro (pg. 779), and I'm quoting the version published in American Sociological Review, which obviously differs from yours,
your point? And how does that answer the question I asked?

[joobz]

My wife acts as if she really loves me. She does everything you would expect from someone who loves someone else.

But, is acting as if she loved me the same as loving me?
No, but acting like she loves you would mean that she is being a good wife. Her being a good wife is independant of whether or not she actually loves you.

Using your analogy. If she loved you so much, that she kills you that know one else could have you, Is she being a good wife or bad wife?

[Belz...]

Stone Island just sent me a PM saying he's going to "plonk" me.

Gosh, you must've lost some sleep on that one!

[Belz...]

My wife acts as if she really loves me. She does everything you would expect from someone who loves someone else.

But, is acting as if she loved me the same as loving me?

Does it matter ? There's no way you can know her mind. Don't you trust her ?

[Stone Island]

No, but acting like she loves you would mean that she is being a good wife. Her being a good wife is independant of whether or not she actually loves you.

I disagree, her loving me (whether I can know it for sure or not) is essential to her being a good wife.

People who do the right thing for the right reasons are more laudable than people who do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Whether we can know someone's reason for doing something or another is besides the point. I'm sure there is a lawyer here who can speak to this, but someone who through negligence runs over a pedestrian in their car is punished less harshly than someone who from malice aforethought does so.

Whether we can know for sure that a citizen of this country is able and willing to offer a morally compelling justification for her citizenship that does not conflict with her other principles is almost besides the point; if we did know we would say that one who can offer that justification is, everything else equal, better than one who cannot.

It does make wonder if someone clever, who could offer a morally compelling justification of their citizenship, and believes it to be true, but acts in all ways contrary to that belief and justification is, in any way, a better citizen than someone who cannot or won't give a justification for their citizenship, but does act in a morally and politically exemplary way. Of course, being able to give a justification is a necessary but not sufficient component of good citizenship.

And I thought about what I said before, that perhaps an atheist could be a good citizen of a country based on the principle of utilitarianism. I think this begs the question, because, given the manifold problems of utilitarianism as a moral philosophy, it's not clear to me that a society based on a utilitarian principle is itself good. I guess some atheist would have to offer the justification and I would then have to judge whether it was morally compelling. I've read some justifications of Communist regimes and other kinds of regimes not based on natural right and I have to admit, I did not find them morally compelling.

[joobz]

I disagree, her loving me (whether I can know it for sure or not) is essential to her being a good wife.
This is an assertion and not born on any reality. You may WANT her to love you, but if she treats you as though she does, she is being a good wife.

Who is a better husband

1.) Man A who loves his wife but has an affair
2.) Man B who doesn't love his wife but has never cheated on her?

Note that in both relationships, the husband and wife are friends who have peaceful happy interactions.

People who do the right thing for the right reasons are more laudable than people who do the right thing for the wrong reasons.I agree. But doing the right thing regardless of the reason makes you GOOD at that thing.

Whether we can know someone's reason for doing something or another is besides the point. I'm sure there is a lawyer here who can speak to this, but someone who through negligence runs over a pedestrian in their car is punished less harshly than someone who from malice aforethought does so.
The person who drove negligently and killed someone was being a bad citizen. plain and simple. They caused a death due to their actions and we punish it. We may lessen the punishment if there wasn't intent, but this has more to do with our compasionate court system vs. whether or not we view a person as a good/bad citizen. We punish in both cases, and are therefore sending the signal that both cases represent bad citizenry.

Further, do we lessen the reward based on intent?
Do we punish a person who avoided hitting a black pedestrian because they didn't want a black person touching thier car?

As you can see, we do not have thought crimes. It is impossible and disengenious for us to define citizenship on thought.

Whether we can know for sure that a citizen of this country is able and willing to offer a morally compelling justification for her citizenship that does not conflict with her other principles is almost besides the point; if we did know we would say that one who can offer that justification is, everything else equal, better than one who cannot.It isn't beside the point, it is your point, your argument. Your argument requires to know what is in the heart of man. You are claiming to know what is in the heart of an atheist and you define it as being less than a theist. That's simple absurdity.


It does make wonder if someone clever, who could offer a morally compelling justification of their citizenship, and believes it to be true, but acts in all ways contrary to that belief and justification is, in any way, a better citizen than someone who cannot or won't give a justification for their citizenship, but does act in a morally and politically exemplary way. No it doesn't. that logic leap requires belief that your definition of good citizen is true. It isn't. Citizenry is defined by actions not beliefs. Of course, being able to give a justification is a necessary but not sufficient component of good citizenship.


And I thought about what I said before, that perhaps an atheist could be a good citizen of a country based on the principle of utilitarianism. I think this begs the question, because, given the manifold problems of utilitarianism as a moral philosophy, it's not clear to me that a society based on a utilitarian principle is itself good.

Because your straw-atheist can only begood in your straw-society which you say isn't good, then the straw-atheist can't be good and therefore atheists can't be good citizens?

Not a very convincing argument. Indeed, it's rather silly.

I gave you an example of a secular humanist society. Could an atheist be good in such? Could you functionally distinguish between a secular humanist society and western governments of today?

I guess some atheist would have to offer the justification and I would then have to judge whether it was morally compelling.
I see. You are the final arbiter on what is good and bad. :rolleyes:

I've read some justifications of Communist regimes and other kinds of regimes not based on natural right and I have to admit, I did not find them morally compelling.
And this straw-society is bad, therefore, atheism is bad?

You ignored my secular humanist example. Why?

[lupus_in_fabula]

Whether we can know someone's reason for doing something or another is besides the point. I'm sure there is a lawyer here who can speak to this, but someone who through negligence runs over a pedestrian in their car is punished less harshly than someone who from malice aforethought does so.

Whether we can know for sure that a citizen of this country is able and willing to offer a morally compelling justification for her citizenship that does not conflict with her other principles is almost besides the point; if we did know we would say that one who can offer that justification is, everything else equal, better than one who cannot.

It does make wonder if someone clever, who could offer a morally compelling justification of their citizenship, and believes it to be true, but acts in all ways contrary to that belief and justification is, in any way, a better citizen than someone who cannot or won't give a justification for their citizenship, but does act in a morally and politically exemplary way. Of course, being able to give a justification is a necessary but not sufficient component of good citizenship.

I don’t think it’s beside the point.

You can’t know for sure if she’s really loving you or just pretending to love you. Pretending could be a part of giving the picture of her being a good wife. She might even fool herself into thinking se really loves you. Although I’m sure she really does, I hope at least.

But the bottom line is that we can only judge such things via behaviour. We cannot know for sure what the motivations really are. Thus the whole point you’re making is pretty much moot. It’s just a silly though experiment about potentials.

We must therefore judge good citizenship via actions, not according to potential mental positions.

[Belz...]

I disagree, her loving me (whether I can know it for sure or not) is essential to her being a good wife.

I guess it all depends on what your definition of "good wife" is.

People who do the right thing for the right reasons are more laudable than people who do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Why ?

Whether we can know someone's reason for doing something or another is besides the point.

No, it's not. If you can't possibly know their reasons, then you have to trust their actions.

Whether we can know for sure that a citizen of this country is able and willing to offer a morally compelling justification for her citizenship that does not conflict with her other principles is almost besides the point; if we did know we would say that one who can offer that justification is, everything else equal, better than one who cannot.

Still wondering about what all that means. A justification for my Canadian citizenship is this: I live in Canada.

And I thought about what I said before, that perhaps an atheist could be a good citizen of a country based on the principle of utilitarianism.

How about one based on humanism ?

[godless dave]

None of that is relevant because, as we have already shown, atheist citizens of the US can offer a morally compelling defense of our form of government without conflicting with any of our principles.

[six7s]

... morally compelling defense of our form of government without conflicting with any of our principles.

I take it you're not including the way your federal justice system washes its hands of and/or turns a blind eye to debacles like the voting laws in Florida where "individuals convicted of a felony are stripped of their civil and voting rights, even after completion of their sentences. Loss of civil rights takes away not only the right to vote, but also the right to hold public office, serve on a jury, and qualify for certain types of state licenses necessary for many jobs, such as those in the construction and medical fields." (Source: aclufl.org (http://www.aclufl.org/issues/voting_rights/florida_voting_ban.cfm))

[godless dave]

I said form of government, not actual government.

I don't actually consider that Florida law a debacle - ill-advised, but not a debacle. What was a debacle was in 2000 when the state knowingly used an inaccurate list of "felons" and prevented thousands of non-felons from voting. What made it more of a debacle is that aside from paying a settlement to the NAACP, they got away with it - the press ignored it and the person most culpable for it, Katherine Harris, went on to get elected to Congress.

[Mister Agenda]

Government base on humanism as in based on the idea that every human should be treated as having inherent worth and dignity? The way I've been hearing it the only moral philosophy atheists are allowed to hold is utilitarianism, won't the atheist inquisition be at our door if we espouse humanism on anything other than utilitarian grounds?

[godless dave]

I think Stone Island wants us to explain how we can subscribe to humanism without basing it on fact statements. Personally I don't. How I act towards others is based on "should" statements, not "is" statements. Nothing in nature tells me I "should" do anything. That's something each of us has to decide for ourselves.

[Belz...]

Ah, but that's the rub, Dave. People like Stone Island don't think humans should think for themselves. We're all lackeys of the big sky-daddy, after all.

[godless dave]

The skeptic atheist citizen of the US says "I prefer to live in a country where the concept of human rights is respected, where those rights are protected and respected by the government."

The believer in natural law citizen of the US says "I have faith that there is a natural law that says humans should have certain rights and that good governments protect and respect them."

The problem for Neuhaus's argument, as articulated by Stone Island, is that a statement of faith is no less arbitrary than a statement of preference. The believer in natural law cannot offer any evidence that this law exists and says what he believes it says. So if skeptic atheists cannot be good citizens of the US because they cannot make a morally compelling, non-arbitrary defense for their country's form of government, then believers in natural law can't be good citizens either, for exactly the same reason.

[Stone Island]

The skeptic atheist citizen of the US says "I prefer to live in a country where the concept of human rights is respected, where those rights are protected and respected by the government."

The believer in natural law citizen of the US says "I have faith that there is a natural law that says humans should have certain rights and that good governments protect and respect them."

The problem for Neuhaus's argument, as articulated by Stone Island, is that a statement of faith is no less arbitrary than a statement of preference. The believer in natural law cannot offer any evidence that this law exists and says what he believes it says. So if skeptic atheists cannot be good citizens of the US because they cannot make a morally compelling, non-arbitrary defense for their country's form of government, then believers in natural law can't be good citizens either, for exactly the same reason.

This is, of course, the nub.

I posted it elsewhere, but there is something that Dr. Harry Neumann (http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Harry-Neumann/dp/0890894558), an avowed nihilist, wrote (http://www.claremont.org/publications/pageid.2574/default.asp) that I liked very much:


In reality's void, all choices are arbitrary. I choose to encourage political, rather than Christian-liberal, decisions by Americans. They should be educated to realize that their political enemies at home and abroad cannot be their private friends. If Russia is to be defeated, Americans must be taught to think politically, not privately.

The heart of politics is not prudent or pious calculation of private interest. Prudence is only a means to political ends. The heart of politics or morality is clear in General Spears's description of the spirit informing Clemenceau's life and death (Assignment to Catastrophe,Vol. II, p. 238). When the French forces were awaiting Ludendorff's attack in 1918, they had left a large zone in front of their main line garrisoned by a few troops with orders to stand and die (in order to trick the Germans into believing that this was the main French force). Clemenceau visited the doomed troops.

He spoke to them in his gruff way, not minimizing the sacrifice being asked of them. Their fate would have been his had he had his way, and the men knew it. They said nothing but presented him with a bouquet of such wild flowers as grow on the parapets of trenches. . . . Clemenceau, who was the toughest, the hardest and perhaps the most cruel man I have ever met, who had but one love, France, sobbed. . . . When he died, that faded posy was found in his desk with the instruction that when he was buried standing, as was his wish, it should be placed over his heart.

[joobz]

This is, of course, the nub.

I posted it elsewhere, but there is something that Dr. Harry Neumann (http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Harry-Neumann/dp/0890894558), an avowed nihilist, wrote (http://www.claremont.org/publications/pageid.2574/default.asp) that I liked very much:
So you agree, then, that atheists can be good citizens?

[Stone Island]

Who are the atheists who aren't skeptics?

Even an a-astrologer, to go contrary to Harris's explanation, while perhaps not thinking about it much, can at least implicitly or theoretically give an account of the world to explain her a-astrology. Scientific explanations work like this, this is the data we have, these are the theories we're using that explain the data we have, and, given our explanatory theories, this is what we will expect to see when we get more data, and astrology doesn't fit any of it.

Is a non-skeptical atheist someone who could conceivably accept God talk as meaningful and true but happens to find it meaningful and false in certain particular instances? Perhaps that's what Neuhaus meant when he described how Christians were atheists with regard to the particular pantheon of Rome.

[godless dave]

This is, of course, the nub.


So you acknowledge that, by Neuhaus's criteria, believers in natural law can't be good citizens any more than atheists?

Who are the atheists who aren't skeptics?


People who don't believe in any gods but do believe in astrology or other superstitions, such as you might find in China.

[joobz]

Who are the atheists who aren't skeptics????
Are you saying skeptics can't be good citizens?
I'm having a hard time keeping up with your shifting argument.

[Foster Zygote]

Who are the atheists who aren't skeptics?

Raelians and Scientologists leap immediately to mind. Also, someone could simply choose to be atheistic without thinking skeptically about the matter.

[six7s]

Raelians and Scientologists leap immediately to mind. Also, someone could simply choose to be atheistic without thinking skeptically about the matter.

Also...

All children up to around the age of five (maybe older?) are too innocent to be anything other than atheists and yet they are blindly accepting (non-sceptical) of what they are told by their 'nearest and dearest'

Are they - simply by virtue of being atheists - to be labelled as bad citizens, too?

[Fiona]

Well they are lousy citizens: they don't vote, they don't pay taxes, they don't give to charity......

[six7s]

Your kids have lice?

[Fiona]

Don't all kids have lice???

[Darat]

So I've heard - its why I'm all for Swift's methodology of child raising.

[six7s]

Gullible travails?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Who are the atheists who aren't skeptics?

Libertarians. :D

[Robin]

They should be educated to realize that their political enemies at home and abroad cannot be their private friends. If Russia is to be defeated, Americans must be taught to think politically, not privately.
What a profoundly undemocratic and politically obtuse thing to say.

The genius of modern democracy is precisely that your political enemies can be your friends.

[godless dave]

Raelians and Scientologists leap immediately to mind. Also, someone could simply choose to be atheistic without thinking skeptically about the matter.

Or they were never exposed to the idea of gods as children, but weren't raised to think skeptically either.

[Stone Island]

What a profoundly undemocratic and politically obtuse thing to say.

The genius of modern democracy is precisely that your political enemies can be your friends.

I doubt that Neumann, as you may be implying, thought that Democrats and Republicans (for instance) were what he would consider political enemies. Both accept the underlying premise of the United States of America as a propositional nation even if they differ on particular applications of that premise. It's only in so far as one rejects the premise that one becomes an enemy.

[joobz]

I doubt that Neumann, as you may be implying, thought that Democrats and Republicans (for instance) were what he would consider political enemies. Both accept the underlying premise of the United States of America as a propositional nation even if they differ on particular applications of that premise. It's only in so far as one rejects the premise that one becomes an enemy.
Really? Do you consider people who wish enact a state religion as poltical enemies to those who wish to maintain a secular government?

Do you believe both of these views fall under the notion of "the United States of America as a propositional nation"?

If you do feel that Neumann wouldn't consider these views as political enemies, then what is the difference between someone who wishes for socialist programs and one who demands only privately funded programs?

ETA: Do you believe that skeptics can't be good citizens? Or only skeptical atheists?

[Stone Island]

Really? Do you consider people who wish enact a state religion as poltical enemies to those who wish to maintain a secular government?

Do you believe both of these views fall under the notion of "the United States of America as a propositional nation"?

If you do feel that Neumann wouldn't consider these views as political enemies, then what is the difference between someone who wishes for socialist programs and one who demands only privately funded programs?

ETA: Do you believe that skeptics can't be good citizens? Or only skeptical atheists?

I think you're exaggerating the size, influence, or seriousness of those who wish to "enact a state religion". A separation of church and state is very different than a separation of religion and politics and I think that if you do some research you'll find that what the Founders were worried about wasn't so much Protestant religion as the Catholic Church. A lot of the First Amendment talk today is colored by a misunderstanding of the difference between those two things.

Communists, for instance, do not believe there is any truth to the notion of natural rights. Thus, they are political enemies of the United States. Socialistic Democrats and Libertarian Republicans (for instance) all agree on the fundamental truth of natural rights, they merely disagree on how to best implement protections of those rights. Their fights are heated and bloody, but they are at bottom the fights between brothers who want only what is best for the family.

[JoeEllison]

Communists, for instance, do not believe there is any truth to the notion of natural rights. Thus, they are political enemies of the United States.

That doesn't make any sense, and seems to be the stupid that you're stuck on.

[Stone Island]

Speaking of stuck on stupid: FYI, (not a good citizen) is not equal to (a bad citizen).

[JoeEllison]

Speaking of stuck on stupid: FYI, (not a good citizen) is not equal to (a bad citizen).

You've got no basis or right to judge my citizenship AT ALL, and the basis you've claimed is intellectually and ethically bankrupt.

[Stone Island]

You've got no basis or right to judge my citizenship AT ALL, and the basis you've claimed is intellectually and ethically bankrupt.

Oh really?

:rolleyes:

[JoeEllison]

Oh really?

:rolleyes:

Yep, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Your bigoted attitudes are too strong for you to have been able to see the error in your ways. I hope for your sake you let go of your hatred and bigotry.

[Stone Island]

Yep, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Your bigoted attitudes are too strong for you to have been able to see the error in your ways. I hope for your sake you let go of your hatred and bigotry.

You don't say?

[joobz]

I think you're exaggerating the size, influence, or seriousness of those who wish to "enact a state religion". A separation of church and state is very different than a separation of religion and politics and I think that if you do some research you'll find that what the Founders were worried about wasn't so much Protestant religion as the Catholic Church. A lot of the First Amendment talk today is colored by a misunderstanding of the difference between those two things.Off point evasion.
I asked:
Do you consider people who wish enact a state religion as poltical enemies to those who wish to maintain a secular government?


Communists, for instance, do not believe there is any truth to the notion of natural rights. Thus, they are political enemies of the United States.I wasn't talking about communists, I said socialist. Also, There is no limitation between in beleiving in natural rights and being communist.


It is clear you believe a belief in natural law is required to not only be a good citizen, but are also now claiming that not believing in it means you are an enemy of the state.

again:
Do you believe skeptics can be good citizens?

[godless dave]

Communists, for instance, do not believe there is any truth to the notion of natural rights.

That's not true, they just have different views about what those rights are and how important they are relative to each other.


Thus, they are political enemies of the United States.

Communists who are American citizens would be (more accurately, Leninists would be because of their views on democracy and free speech), but not necessarily Communists in other countries. A Communist in Nepal who wants Nepal to have a Communist government is not a political enemy of the United States. He's the political enemy of Nepalese monarchists.

[godless dave]

This discussion of Neuman's statement is really a derail. Stone Island, can you comment on my point that principles based on beliefs held as a matter of faith are no less arbitrary then principles held as a matter of personal preference?

[Foster Zygote]

Speaking of stuck on stupid: FYI, (not a good citizen) is not equal to (a bad citizen).

Right, atheists aren't necessarily bad citizens, they're just inferior to Neuhaus.

[JoeEllison]

Right, atheists aren't necessarily bad citizens, they're just inferior to Neuhaus.

We're not "bad", we're just second-class citizens, according to Neuhaus.

Is there any reason why Neuhaus gets to be an authority on citizenship?

[joobz]

Speaking of stuck on stupid: FYI, (not a good citizen) is not equal to (a bad citizen).
I thought you realized how poor that argument is. We will never make progress if you keep repeating already debunked points..
So, now you claiming there are levels to citizenry and that what you believe dictates which levels are available to you?

In other words:
So, a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes no god is able to be at best a citizen.

Whereas, a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in any of the countless number of gods that have been worshiped is able to be a maximum a good citizen.

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the god of abraham is able to be a maximum a great citizen.

or

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the christian god is able to be a maximum an outstanding citizen.

...

How about a person who pays taxes, helps his fellow man, is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others and is believes in the southern revivalist, northeast chapter of the baptist reformationists 2nd house assembly's god is able to be a maximum a super double secret mega-happy inverted dancing magoo awesomeness great citizen.

[joobz]

We're not "bad", we're just second-class citizens, according to Neuhaus.

Is there any reason why Neuhaus gets to be an authority on citizenship?
IT's a bad argument. SI knows it's a bad argument. Why he chooses to repeat that bad argument is the mystery.

[JoeEllison]

IT's a bad argument. SI knows it's a bad argument. Why he chooses to repeat that bad argument is the mystery.

We know why, it really isn't a mystery at all... is it?:rolleyes:

All we can do is try to catch someone who might be reading this thread and steer them away from the sort of illogical non-reasoning that SI has presented for our amusement.

[Ateius]

Is there any reason why Neuhaus gets to be an authority on citizenship?

Because Stone Island says so?

[thaiboxerken]

Is there any reason why Neuhaus gets to be an authority on citizenship?

Only in the mind's of bigots. He has no expertise or even anything of value to say about it to anyone else. He's a moron, a fool, a bigot and an intellectual coward.

[JoeEllison]

Only in the mind's of bigots. He has no expertise or even anything of value to say about it to anyone else. He's a moron, a fool, a bigot and an intellectual coward.

Yeah, but he says "Jesus" a bunch, and hates everything that he's supposed to in order to carry religious right-wing credentials. The fact that he's collaborated with Chuck "Watergate Seven" Colson tells us something about his sick views on America, doesn't it? :D

[KingMerv00]

Communists, for instance, do not believe there is any truth to the notion of natural rights. Thus, they are political enemies of the United States.

You seem to be incapable of naming a group without making unfounded generalizations. There is nothing specific to communism that prevents you from recognizing natural rights. In fact, there is nothing to stop you from being a Christian communist. FATHER Coughlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin) immediately springs to mind. He believed in a higher moral authority and could therefore be a good citizen in your eyes.

(I fear I will have to repost this paragraph numerous times before you even attempt to squeak out some half-hearted evasion by proxy. I beg you, prove me wrong. Show a modicum of nuance, dignity, and unpredictability by squeaking before Independence Day.)

[Belz...]

Speaking of stuck on stupid: FYI, (not a good citizen) is not equal to (a bad citizen).

Why don't you stop redefining terms to give yourself wiggle-space ?

You don't say?

Troll.

[joobz]

You seem to be incapable of naming a group without making unfounded generalizations. There is nothing specific to communism that prevents you from recognizing natural rights. In fact, there is nothing to stop you from being a Christian communist. FATHER Coughlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin) immediately springs to mind. He believed in a higher moral authority and could therefore be a good citizen in your eyes.

(I fear I will have to repost this paragraph numerous times before you even attempt to squeak out some half-hearted evasion by proxy. I beg you, prove me wrong. Show a modicum of nuance, dignity, and unpredictability by squeaking before Independence Day.)

I must admit that Stone Island makes so many mistakes regarding political theory, history and philosophy that I am finding it harder and harder to believe that he is what he says he is.

[JoeEllison]

Why don't you stop redefining terms to give yourself wiggle-space ?



Troll.
You don't say? :)

[JoeEllison]

I must admit that Stone Island makes so many mistakes regarding political theory, history and philosophy that I am finding it harder and harder to believe that he is what he says he is.
You should read Matt Taibbi's piece in the latest Rolling Stone ragazine. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20278737/jesus_made_me_puke) He goes undercover in John Hagee's church, and spends a week at a retreat. Here's a bit of it:
One thing about this world: Once a preacher says it, it's true. No one is going to look up anything the preacher says, cross-check his facts, raise an eyebrow at something that might sound a little off. Some weeks later, I would be at a Sunday service in which Pastor John Hagee himself would assert that the Bible predicts that Jesus Christ is going to return to Earth bearing a "rod of iron" to discipline the ACLU. It goes without saying that the ACLU was not mentioned in the passage in Ezekiel he was citing — but the audience ate it up anyway. When they're away from the cameras, the preachers feel even less obligated to shackle themselves to facts of any kind. That's because they know that their audience doesn't give a ****. So long as you're telling them what they want to hear, there's no danger; your crowd will angrily dismiss any alternative explanations anyway as demonic subversion. A team of twenty of the world's leading scientists wouldn't be able to convince so much as one person in this crowd that homosexuals are not created by pedophiles.

I think that pretty much explains it all, don't you? Neuhaus wrote it, he's considered "credible" by his audience, therefore it much be true. My impression of this thread is that SI posted his initial stupidity, and as the thread continued, he answered each objection by flipping through one of Neuhaus's books and then basically cutting and pasting his arguments into this thread. Actually thinking about these positions? I doubt SI has even considered that idea. The conclusion is what matters: for whatever reason, SI needs to classify himself as better than others based on his belief in the mythological deity of ancient Middle Eastern people. Since self-esteem is a tough thing for some folks, they often take the easy way out, and classify another group as being "second class"... or, in SI's case, "not capable of being good citizens."

I always wonder how empty someone's life must be, that their main source of pride has nothing to do with any accomplishments, but in something silly and arbitrary and most foolish of all based on simply not being part of a group that you are bigoted against. It is identical to a racist saying "well, at least I'm not black" or "Mexicans don't belong in our(white) country." There IS a method to the madness, of course. The people who take pride in being part of a group, instead of in their accomplishments, usually don't have much in the way of real things to be proud of, because those things take EFFORT. It doesn't take much effort to be a member of a group based on believing something and saying the right words on cue. That's why people like Neuhaus define "good citizenship" in the way they do... the way they define themselves as a good person is by excluding people outside of their "club."

Most people define good citizenship based on rational, adult standards. Good citizenship is generally defined by the works a person does to improve the country they live in. That includes things like participation in the political process, volunteer or charity work, public service including but not limited to military service, and other active efforts to be a part of a thriving and healthy society. It involved dealing with your fellow citizens in a decent and honest way, paying your taxes, working a job, and helping out people in need. The religious right-wing, on the other hand, defines citizenship the way a small, not very bright child would: by being a member of the Christian "club", and learning all the "secret handshakes" of the club. It is all about symbols like the flag and the Pledge of Allegiance, and putting a Jesus Fish on your bumper. The practical responsibilities of citizenship don't mean anything to them, unless they can be publicly displayed as yet another meaningless symbol. The only people they feel any obligation to are their fellow club members. And, worst of all, the ideas of decency and honesty are not valued by many of these people if it gets in the way of the ideology. Maintaining the power of the "club" and its symbols is far more important than integrity or compassion.

In that way, it is much more logical to say that a person like Neuhaus is not only unfit to judge what makes a good citizen, but is also unlikely to be a good citizen himself. Not because he's a Christian, but because he rejects the idea of civic duty in favor of his religion.

[Belz...]

I always wonder how empty someone's life must be, that their main source of pride has nothing to do with any accomplishments

Not any of their own, anyway.

The people who take pride in being part of a group, instead of in their accomplishments, usually don't have much in the way of real things to be proud of, because those things take EFFORT. It doesn't take much effort to be a member of a group based on believing something and saying the right words on cue. That's why people like Neuhaus define "good citizenship" in the way they do... the way they define themselves as a good person is by excluding people outside of their "club."

They specifically redefine it so that they become good citizens and other people become bad citizens. Classic.

[joobz]

I always wonder how empty someone's life must be, that their main source of pride has nothing to do with any accomplishments, ..
I think you've hit on an extremely important point and one that shed's light on the desire to redefine citizen from one based on actions to one based on thoughts.
Although, I wouldn't claim it is due to emptiness but rather fear.

If we define citizenry on actions, then that means you actually have to DO something to be good and in particular, you have to do that thing WELL. It's a scary prospect to think that you must perform well to pass the test and be called good. So Neuhaus changes definitions so that the mere fact that you believe a certain way gives you an immediate plus. Meaning, that you do not have to do much, if anything, to receive the good label.

[Stone Island]

Wow, the false dilemmas, psychoanalysis, and general muddleheadedness are coming thick and fast.

Maybe I'm wrong about Communism and natural rights. I don't know where in Marx or Lenin you will find a defense of natural rights, and I've read a few places where Marx has condemned the notion outright, and from what I know about the philosophy of Communism they seem technically incompatible, but I would sure be interested to hear of it.

I don't think Neuhaus or anyone else suggested, intimated, or otherwise supported the notion of testing people to determine whether or not they were good citizens. Who was Socrates to question the good and understood by the city? Who is anyone to question what is and to wonder, "Is it good? Is this the way man should live?"

I always wonder how empty someone's life must be, that their main source of pride has nothing to do with any accomplishments, but in something silly and arbitrary and most foolish of all based on simply not being part of a group that you are bigoted against.

Zarathustra would say that this is the only thing that any society has ever had to attempt to justify itself. We are no different.

And my presentation of Newmann isn't a dodge, rather, I see it as the articulation of an alternative. If no one can give a non-arbitrary, morally compelling justification of her country, then any justification of one's country is merely political, i.e., nihilistic will to power.

[JoeEllison]

I think you've hit on an extremely important point and one that shed's light on the desire to redefine citizen from one based on actions to one based on thoughts.
Although, I wouldn't claim it is due to emptiness but rather fear.

If we define citizenry on actions, then that means you actually have to DO something to be good and in particular, you have to do that thing WELL. It's a scary prospect to think that you must perform well to pass the test and be called good. So Neuhaus changes definitions so that the mere fact that you believe a certain way gives you an immediate plus. Meaning, that you do not have to do much, if anything, to receive the good label.

More importantly, it allows people like Neuhaus to be actively bad citizens in all the ways that smart and honest people recognize, and still feel superior to everyone else. All his neo-con horsecrap rejects civic duty entirely, and insists that there is no responsibility to the country as a whole. He's all for saying "Jesus" a bunch, and claiming that Christianity should be a part of government... just not when it requires following Jesus when it comes to our responsibility to the poorest and weakest members of our society.

So, add hypocrisy to his sins. Even his religion is about symbols over action. He doesn't believe Christians need to actually be Christ-like, they just have to pay lip service to Jesus, and be bigoted against the correct groups of heathens, sinners, and unbelievers.

[godless dave]

And my presentation of Newmann isn't a dodge, rather, I see it as the articulation of an alternative. If no one can give a non-arbitrary, morally compelling justification of her country, then any justification of one's country is merely political, i.e., nihilistic will to power.


That's what we call a false dichotomy.

You've also changed the topic. The original topic was about justifying our form of government. Now you're talking about justifying our country. Countries don't need to be justified; they just exist for historical and cultural reasons.

The reason I am a citizen of the United States, and the reason I attempt to be a good citizen, is because I was born here. What I would want to justify, if explaining to my hypothetical children the importance of good citizenship, would be the form of government we have here, not the country itself.

If I had been born in Canada I would have tried to be a good citizen of Canada. If I had been born in the Soviet Union, I probably wouldn't attempt to justify my country's form of government even if I loved my country.

[Stone Island]

More importantly, it allows people like Neuhaus to be actively bad citizens in all the ways that smart and honest people recognize, and still feel superior to everyone else. All his neo-con horsecrap rejects civic duty entirely, and insists that there is no responsibility to the country as a whole. He's all for saying "Jesus" a bunch, and claiming that Christianity should be a part of government... just not when it requires following Jesus when it comes to our responsibility to the poorest and weakest members of our society.

So, add hypocrisy to his sins. Even his religion is about symbols over action. He doesn't believe Christians need to actually be Christ-like, they just have to pay lip service to Jesus, and be bigoted against the correct groups of heathens, sinners, and unbelievers.

Again: necessary not equal to sufficient.

Neuahus is, I think, a member of the Catholic Church, and First Things is a magazine aimed at Catholics, so it's not too much of a stretch to assume that he is well versed in the necessity of good works as opposed to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone.

[godless dave]

Maybe I'm wrong about Communism and natural rights. I don't know where in Marx or Lenin you will find a defense of natural rights,


Irrelevant. Marxism doesn't have to offer a defense of natural rights to be compatible with it.


and I've read a few places where Marx has condemned the notion outright,

Cite please?

and from what I know about the philosophy of Communism they seem technically incompatible,

I don't see how.

Like I said above, Communism emphasizes different rights. To a Leninist, the right for workers to control the means of production would be more important than the right of free speech. I don't agree with that view myself, but as we've already discussed, even if natural rights exist, it's impossible to determine what those rights are.

[JoeEllison]

That's what we call a false dichotomy.

You've also changed the topic. The original topic was about justifying our form of government. Now you're talking about justifying our country. Countries don't need to be justified; they just exist for historical and cultural reasons.
He also continues to rely on his illogical and imaginary "non-arbitrary, morally compelling justification" argument, even though there's no such thing, and I'm not sure if he even bothered trying to prove the existence of such a thing.

[Stone Island]

You've also changed the topic. The original topic was about justifying our form of government. Now you're talking about justifying our country. Countries don't need to be justified; they just exist for historical and cultural reasons.

You're right, of course. I suppose I'm being sloppy; I'm using the terms interchangeably. Country, state, nation, government, civitas, civil society...

[JoeEllison]

Again: necessary not equal to sufficient.[quote] And, repetition of your poorly constructed position is not sufficient to support it.

[quote]Neuahus is, I think, a member of the Catholic Church, and First Things is a magazine aimed at Catholics, so it's not too much of a stretch to assume that he is well versed in the necessity of good works as opposed to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone. Too bad neither he nor you are well versed in American history or government... part of why you both fail as citizens under certain criteria.

[JoeEllison]

Like I said above, Communism emphasizes different rights. To a Leninist, the right for workers to control the means of production would be more important than the right of free speech. I don't agree with that view myself, but as we've already discussed, even if natural rights exist, it's impossible to determine what those rights are.Isn't this a case of special pleading? He's asserting that all other viewpoints should be rejected as arbitrary, except his own. At the same time, he gives no particular justification for his own viewpoint that isn't, when you get down to brass tacks, just as arbitrary as any other.

[godless dave]

Isn't this a case of special pleading? He's asserting that all other viewpoints should be rejected as arbitrary, except his own. At the same time, he gives no particular justification for his own viewpoint that isn't, when you get down to brass tacks, just as arbitrary as any other.

Yes, I've pointed that out a couple times.

[JoeEllison]

Yes, I've pointed that out a couple times.
Has he addressed it even once?

[godless dave]

Has he addressed it even once?

Just with an unsupported assertion:

If no one can give a non-arbitrary, morally compelling justification of her country, then any justification of one's country is merely political, i.e., nihilistic will to power.

[JoeEllison]

Just with an unsupported assertion:

Unsupported assertion, false dichotomy, poisoning the well am I missing any? Are "false outcome" or "assertion of negative outcome" specific fallacies? He crams so many into a single short sentence, it is hard to keep up.

[Stone Island]

Irrelevant. Marxism doesn't have to offer a defense of natural rights to be compatible with it.


On the Jewish Question[/I]]Hence, man was not freed from religion, he received religious freedom. He was not freed from property, he received freedom to own property. He was not freed from the egoism of business, he received freedom to engage in business.

The establishment of the political state and the dissolution of civil society into independent individuals -- whose relation with one another on _law_, just as the relations of men in the system of estates and guilds depended on _privilege_ -- is accomplished by one and the same act. Man as a member of civil society, unpolitical man, inevitably appears, however, as the _natural_ man. The "rights of man" appears as "natural rights", because conscious activity is concentrated on the _political_ act. Egoistic man is the passive result of the dissolved society, a result that is simply found in existence, an object of immediate certainty, therefore a _natural_ object. The political revolution resolves civil life into its component parts, without revolutionizing these components themselves or subjecting them to criticism. It regards civil society, the world of needs, labor, private interests, civil law, as the basis of its existence, as a precondition not requiring further substantiation and therefore as its _natural_ basis. Finally, man as a member of civil society is held to be man in his sensuous, individual, _immediate_ existence, whereas _political_ man is only abstract, artificial man, man as an allegorical, juridical person. The real man is recognized only in the shape of the egoistic individual, the true man is recognized only in the shape of the abstract citizen...
Only when the real, individual man re-absorbs in himself the abstract citizen, and as an individual human being has become a species-being in his everyday life, in his particular work, and in his particular situation, only when man has recognized and organized his "own powers" as -social_ powers, and, consequently, no longer separates social power from himself in the shape of _political_ power, only then will human emancipation have been accomplished.

Oh, you might also want to see The German Ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03i.htm).

[godless dave]

On the Jewish Question[/i]]Hence, man was not freed from religion, he received religious freedom. He was not freed from property, he received freedom to own property. He was not freed from the egoism of business, he received freedom to engage in business.

The establishment of the political state and the dissolution of civil society into independent individuals -- whose relation with one another on _law_, just as the relations of men in the system of estates and guilds depended on _privilege_ -- is accomplished by one and the same act. Man as a member of civil society, unpolitical man, inevitably appears, however, as the _natural_ man. The "rights of man" appears as "natural rights", because conscious activity is concentrated on the _political_ act. Egoistic man is the passive result of the dissolved society, a result that is simply found in existence, an object of immediate certainty, therefore a _natural_ object. The political revolution resolves civil life into its component parts, without revolutionizing these components themselves or subjecting them to criticism. It regards civil society, the world of needs, labor, private interests, civil law, as the basis of its existence, as a precondition not requiring further substantiation and therefore as its _natural_ basis. Finally, man as a member of civil society is held to be man in his sensuous, individual, _immediate_ existence, whereas _political_ man is only abstract, artificial man, man as an allegorical, juridical person. The real man is recognized only in the shape of the egoistic individual, the true man is recognized only in the shape of the abstract citizen...
Only when the real, individual man re-absorbs in himself the abstract citizen, and as an individual human being has become a species-being in his everyday life, in his particular work, and in his particular situation, only when man has recognized and organized his "own powers" as -social_ powers, and, consequently, no longer separates social power from himself in the shape of _political_ power, only then will human emancipation have been accomplished.



Wordy and obtuse, as was typical for Marx, but it doesn't prevent any compatibility with human rights or even natural rights.

[Stone Island]

Isn't this a case of special pleading? He's asserting that all other viewpoints should be rejected as arbitrary, except his own. At the same time, he gives no particular justification for his own viewpoint that isn't, when you get down to brass tacks, just as arbitrary as any other.

Well, not really, because, unlike Neuhaus, I've accepted the possibility that there is no possible non-arbitrary morally compelling defense of my nation, and that my support of it is merely political, i.e., will to power.

[JoeEllison]

Well, not really, because, unlike Neuhaus, I've accepted the possibility that there is no possible non-arbitrary morally compelling defense of my nation, and that my support of it is merely political, i.e., will to power.

Ah, so you admit that Neuhaus is wrong and stupidly so, while continuing forward with logical fallacies of your own. Sweet.

[Stone Island]

Wordy and obtuse, as was typical for Marx, but it doesn't prevent any compatibility with human rights or even natural rights.

Eh? Oh really?

Listen, I suppose that I could believe in God and moral talk and natural rights and Ayer's verification theory of meaning. That doesn't make them any less incompatible, philosophically speaking.

Marx's Communism, based as it is on the theory of dialectical materialism, is incompatible with the American Founder's theory of natural rights.

[godless dave]

Eh? Oh really?

If I'm wrong, please point out where in the passage you quoted such an incompatibility exists.


Marx's Communism, based as it is on the theory of dialectical materialism, is incompatible with the American Founder's theory of natural rights.

You just changed the subject again. Above you said Communism was incompatible with natural rights. Now you're saying it's incompatible with one particular version of natural rights.

[godless dave]

Well, not really, because, unlike Neuhaus, I've accepted the possibility that there is no possible non-arbitrary morally compelling defense of my nation, and that my support of it is merely political, i.e., will to power.


You're still confusing "arbitary" with "subjective".

You would agree, I assume, that there is no transcendent, eternal thing corresponding to the concept of chivalry. Chivalry is just a concept invented by humans regarding how humans can behave. And yet, somehow, the ruling classes in Europe based their social interactions on this concept for centuries. In that sense chivalry was "real".

So it is with human rights. They are not a transcendent, eternal thing. They are a concept invented by humans regarding how humans can behave. Some governments operate according to this concept, and many of us prefer to live in countries with those kinds of governments.

[Almo]

I'm a good citizen. Therefore, atheists can be good citizens.

End of thread. (I wish)

[KingMerv00]

Maybe I'm on ignore.

Could someone else bring up FATHER Coughlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin)?

[Stone Island]

You just changed the subject again. Above you said Communism was incompatible with natural rights. Now you're saying it's incompatible with one particular version of natural rights.

I'm just trying to clean it up, and make sure we're all talking about the same thing. While how he like's his porridge is an accidental characteristic of your Scottish gentleman, I suppose there must be some essential characteristic of his Scottishness. It's that one particular view we've been talking about here, since the very beginning.

I would like to see a natural rights theory that is compatible with Marx's materialism.

[Stone Island]

You would agree, I assume, that there is no transcendent, eternal thing corresponding to the concept of chivalry. Chivalry is just a concept invented by humans regarding how humans can behave. And yet, somehow, the ruling classes in Europe based their social interactions on this concept for centuries. In that sense chivalry was "real".


Yes, real and arbitrary.

[godless dave]

I would like to see a natural rights theory that is compatible with Marx's materialism.

I would think any theory that doesn't include a right to own property would be compatible with it.

[godless dave]

Yes, real and arbitrary.

So any concept invented by humans is "arbitrary" in your view?

[joobz]

I don't care to continue down this track of communism. It's clear that communism can agree with natural law, considering that many forms of communism are religiously oriented.
So, to go back to a previous point that Stone Island made.
This is, of course, the nub.

I posted it elsewhere, but there is something that Dr. Harry Neumann (http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Harry-Neumann/dp/0890894558), an avowed nihilist, wrote (http://www.claremont.org/publications/pageid.2574/default.asp) that I liked very much:
where the article highlights the fact that views are arbitary. Which means that all we have is the use of axiomatic reasoning to support our views. Atheists can do this, so atheists can be good citizens... Which is why I said:
So you agree, then, that atheists can be good citizens?
Then Stone Iland replies with a bizarre claim of:

Who are the atheists who aren't skeptics?

Which seems to be that he is implying that skeptics are incapable of using axiomatic reasoning. which is why I asked:
???
Are you saying skeptics can't be good citizens?
I'm having a hard time keeping up with your shifting argument.

You have avoided this entirely.

It seems to be that you think skeptical atheists can be good citizens. Why? Does it mean that any skeptic can't be a good citizen?

[Belz...]

Maybe I'm wrong about Communism and natural rights.

Honestly, who gives a flying squirrel about natural rights ?

[Belz...]

Well, not really, because, unlike Neuhaus, I've accepted the possibility that there is no possible non-arbitrary morally compelling defense of my nation, and that my support of it is merely political, i.e., will to power.

And therefore NO ONE can be a good citizen ?

[Stone Island]

So any concept invented by humans is "arbitrary" in your view?

No, of course not.

Natural rights, however, purport to be normative, imperative, and transcendent.

[godless dave]

No, of course not.

So what's arbitrary about the human concepts of morality, fairness, justice, and human rights?


Natural rights, however, purport to be normative, imperative, and transcendent.

I think you mean to say that people purport natural rights to be normative, imperative, and transcendent. The rights themselves cannot purport anything.

But people can purport that all they want. No one has offered any evidence that natural rights are normative, imperative, and transcendent.

[Belz...]

No, of course not.

Natural rights, however, purport to be normative, imperative, and transcendent.

And yet they don't exist. Look at that.

[JoeEllison]

And yet they don't exist. Look at that.

And yet they whisper sweet nothings into SI's ears at night, and tell him about how "normative" they are?

[Robin]

I doubt that Neumann, as you may be implying, thought that Democrats and Republicans (for instance) were what he would consider political enemies. Both accept the underlying premise of the United States of America as a propositional nation even if they differ on particular applications of that premise. It's only in so far as one rejects the premise that one becomes an enemy.
I was implying nothing of the sort (and I am puzzled why you would think I thought that). Democrats and Republicans are all but indistinguishable to anybody living outside the United States.

I was referring to genuine political enemies, for example those who supported the Soviet model of Communism and sought to expand it to the rest of the world. That was pretty inimical to the idea of the United States.

Yet someone holding those ideas could express them freely in a democracy and discuss them openly and peacefully and still be friends who thought the idea crazy.

It is, as I said, profoundly undemocratic to say that people in a democracy cannot be friends with someone who advocates a different form of government. Undemocratic, obtuse and counter-productive.

The Muslim clerics who want to promote extremism also tell their followers that they cannot be friends with their political and religious enemies. Because they know that such friendships promote understanding, tolerance and moderation.

As I said, it is the genius of democracy that such friendships can happen and thrive. It is often our best protection against extremism.

[Furi]

Who are the atheists who aren't skeptics?

I suppose non of the wiccans, spiritualist astrologers, Gaeans, Raeliens, shamanists, newages, Buddhists, Taoists, and infact all the other peops that do not believe in a deity but accept something like pre determinism, ESP, homepathy, posession, channeling etc without question and do not enquire as to the nature of claims don't count as atheist non-skeptics

I know plenty of atheists that are far less skeptical then theists, and one or two that think the phrase open minded means every bit of info has equal merit, and wouldn't recognise any critical thinking if it possessed a Titanium Clue bat in one hand, and a big blue neon sign that flashed "THINK!" every time you got spanged for spouting sumtin stoopid.

or do you mean atheists that are not skeptical towards god. in which case that would be almost as many as theists that are skeptical to the existance of god.