Cads

[Blarg]

The point against anti-clericalism gets raised after a brief allusion to the difference between the idea of freedom as autonomy, leading to hedonistic self-interest and consumerism, as opposed Socratic self-awareness, plus the historical observation that autonomy and individualism are products of 18th century anti-clericalism as well as social principles that have been held aloft in western society since the 18th century enlightenment.

This is one of those pakin.org fake argument generators isn't it

[Kuya]

Also we talk alot about this idea of a social society, wherein individualism is an antiquated ideal and empathy is primary, and wherein policy reflects these new attitudes. I don't think there's much we can say to one another on that subject that hasn't been said before.

Except! What do you think about Taylor saying that the public needs to place more trust in public institutions?

I think the statement is a bit too general to be useful. So i'd expand that into:

1. We need public trust in public institutions because otherwise what we have is political apathy. Though people do not need public institutions to form communities and work together, i think it's important to notice that public institutions are places where precisely this kind of activity takes place.

2. More important than dealing with the public, the public institutions need a facelift. Corruption and bitter partisanship diminishes belief in public institutions. As does innefficiency defined as unresponsiveness to public demands. I would also add a sense that there are real and effective mechanisms to hold public institutions accountable.

3. As we discussed before, in promoting more public trust in public institutions, it might help if the public held empathy, fraternity, community to higher regards.

[Cadsuane]

Well, my stance on that is that being too antagonistic towards religious people themselves doesn't really convince them out of religion. I don't think that people who weakly/strongly attach themselves to dogma are coerced by militaristic narrative. I think that it is far more effective to raise the standards of living and promoting critical thinking (which is a major point the discussion brings up). However, the same atheists who agree with strongly confronting theists often also agree with me that education and social reform is important, but that we should also, in their words, "not give a free pass to religion".

In my opinion, that stance doesn't rise out of a rigorous apraisal of the situation. That is, i think that their reasons supporting militaristic atheism is:

1. They feel antagonized by theism, so they wish to respond in kind with antagonism. Particularly because they perceive theists as more aggresive, and atheists as more passive which they might also perceive as weakness. So being more militaristic equals being stronger.

2. Atheists probably put more currency in the critical search for truth, so when in confrontation with theists their intent seems to be to prove who is right and who is wrong. They feel that they just can't let ideas that are false just run around unchanllenged and that it is their duty to attack religious ideas.

Yet inside of both of these considerations there is no real assessment of what methods effectively change theists into atheists (or at least into deists).

In other words, i disagree with being civil for the sake of it. I think in this instance, being civil is useful because i feel that people who are weakly religious have a tendency to attach themselves more to their beliefs when challenged in a certain way. And that those who are strongly religious become more fundamentalist. I am not saying that civility is wrong, but i don't much care for it.

Well, you've really got three positions you can occupy as an atheist then don't you? You can be a militant atheist, that is, believing that religion is harmful to society and individuals, and choosing to actively combat it somehow. Or you can be a fatalistic atheist, which is still believing that we should be rid of religion but also that actively combatting it is unproductive. Or you can be some kind of pluralistic atheist, which seems more tenuous than the rest even if it is the most reconciliatory.

I think the statement is a bit too general to be useful. So i'd expand that into:

1. We need public trust in public institutions because otherwise what we have is political apathy. Though people do not need public institutions to form communities and work together, i think it's important to notice that public institutions are places where precisely this kind of activity takes place.

2. More important than dealing with the public, the public institutions need a facelift. Corruption and bitter partisanship diminishes belief in public institutions. As does innefficiency defined as unresponsiveness to public demands. I would also add a sense that there are real and effective mechanisms to hold public institutions accountable.

3. As we discussed before, in promoting more public trust in public institutions, it might help if the public held empathy, fraternity, community to higher regards.

Yes, all this, but also remember that Taylor talks about recognizing the distinction between civic criticism and civic disparagement. I'm curious to know whether, as a logical consequence, he believes that if the choice is between political apathy/blind trust and inane or paranoid distrust, we're better off with the former.

[Cadsuane]

P.S. Kuya, I'd love to make this thread 10 pages long but you caught me in the middle of cramming for a real analysis final. Could you not tempt me to squander the next 4 hours on this thread?

[Kuya]

Kay, also i am having a difficult time trying to get AIM through pidgin, so it seems i might have to make a new AIM account.

[Antithesis]

Kay, also i am having a difficult time trying to get AIM through pidgin, so it seems i might have to make a new AIM account.

Check your options. There is a certain option some people need to disable in order to hop online with some instant messaging accounts.