Pope Warns of the Dangers of Progressivism

[thegreekdog]

If health concerns are the reason then why are alcohol and tobacco legal? They are more harmful than most of the currently illegal drugs. Why did alcohol prohibition end in America and yet other drugs remained prohibited?
What problems do people who sex at the age of 16 or 17 have in their later lives? What a ridiculous assertion.

My point is that the main lobby against drugs, sex and all these other things is based on moral revulsion. I don't see why this kind of moralising is okay but religious moralising is treated with 'stupid godfags you so dumb gtfo!!!'. I'll get the references for this next part later if you like but right now I cba. A Dutch (I think) researcher once did a piece on young boys (12/13yo) who have consensual sexual relationships with much older men. The people he spoke to were all fine and the relationships were, far from harming the boys, actually good for them. He was, however, widely denounced by a bunch of conservative critics who made a series of patently false criticisms to try and undermine his credibility. The point is that they rounded on him purely because they found his conclusions distasteful, rather than out of any genuine academic concern.

There is a cultural point of view on all kids of things that simply does not allow people to think freely in many regards. There are many people who, for other than religious reasons, have a problem with something that has no effect on them (e.g. polygamy). I'm not making a judgment on those people except to say that sometimes culture dictates values.

The acceptance of gay marriage is one such example. Some people were (and maybe still are) against gay marriage because of a cultural issue and not because of a religious one. So proponents of gay marriage say things like "get with the times" or "it doesn't hurt you at all, why do you care" or "it's protected under the Constitution," which are all valid arguments. But those gay marriage proponents when faced with a discussion on, let's say, polygamy, don't approve for cultural reasons. I guess my point here is that there is always a step further down the path of making people uncomfortable culturally and people who denigrate those who are not comfortable with a certain lifestyle should keep that in mind when making heated or vehement arguments.

[mrswdk]

I don't give a crap about gay marriage. I just think it's bogus to tell religious people that their morals cannot play any part in their country's policy and then in the same breath say that other morals are legitimate policy guides (especially when the person arguing this point of view feels it's necessary to make snide remarks about 'magic books').

[thegreekdog]

I don't give a crap about gay marriage. I just think it's bogus to tell religious people that their morals cannot play any part in their country's policy and then in the same breath say that other morals are legitimate policy guides (especially when the person arguing this point of view feels it's necessary to make snide remarks about 'magic books').

I used gay marriage as an example. I can use abortion as an example as well.

If the United States Constitution did not provide for a separation of religion from the state, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. I know I personally take that to a rather extreme point of view (i.e. religion shouldn't influence your vote), but I'm probably one of the few who believes that.

I think it's bogus to say that "X is good" but "Y is bad" when the arguments against X are the same as the arguments against Y. In other words, if someone says "murder is bad" and defines murder as something done to a person who is alive. And that person indicates that if the fetus can live outside the womb, then abortion is murder and we should cut off available abortions to that date. Then science advances 20 years later such that a 2 month old fetus can live outside the mother's womb and yet it is still okay to abort an otherwise viable fetus. That's problematic to me. That means the person is not being consistent and that their argument in favor of abortion 20 years ago was based on a false premise.

In any event, it's a cultural thing. Abortion is okay if the fetus is less than 3 months old, regardless of science, because our culture accepts that. Gay marriage is okay, but polygamy is not because our culture accepts homosexuality (now) and does not accept polygamy. Providing everyone with healthcare provided by the government is okay, but providing everyone with a house provided by the government is not.

[mrswdk]

I think 'murder is bad' is a dumb argument in any scenario. The only debate of any value for policy is: when is it inefficient to allow one human to kill another?

[BigBallinStalin]

I'll try a different way to phrase it because you're still not getting it.

There's a difference between accepting the form of the argument as valid but disagreeing on the conclusion, and not accepting the form of the argument as valid at all.

I can hear a secular argument for ObamaCare, and I can disagree and point out flaws X Y and Z with the argument. The pro-OC people can then come back with counter-arguments why my objections are flawed, or modify OC in such a way as to get round those objections. This can continue until a sort of equilibrium is reached (and not everyone may be happy with that, but that's where the voter power comes into play, the voters give politicans majorities to decide who has the ultimate power to veto or force something through). The debate is open to all and the method forces compromises and workarounds to improve whatever the government is doing or they will get less votes next time round and lose power.

I can hear a religious argument for just about anything and there's nothing I can say except "pfft God doesn't exist". And all that can be said in return is "Yes he does!" That's not a debate, there's no way to find compromises or to find workarounds to improve the proposed legislation. It also says precisely nothing to anyone who believes in a different religion or does not believe at all. If you tell me "God likes X" then that has precisely the same power of justification of X as you saying "Santa likes X" or "The tooth fairy likes X". Would YOU vote for something if a politican told you the easter bunny approved of this legislation?

I have no problem with religious people voting in a way that fits their religious beliefs, that's a totally separate issue (actually I do have an issue with those peple, but it's not an issue that can be addressed via the democratic systems and so not relevant within this context). I have a problem with the politicians making votes an explicitly religious issue. It's lazy, it forbids compromise, and in a way it's downright cheating the system.

The problem is that there is no equilibrium for many issues, and that logic itself can't settle the debate so that it brings us to the best policy. For example, many people thought Socialism was a great idea in terms of economic production, efficiency, and fairness, but it took up to the 1930s with the Socialist Calculation debate to logically put their argument to an end. Until then, perhaps arguments against socialism weren't so great, but it didn't follow that socialism was a great idea. With your standards, up to the 1930s, you'd be pushing for Socialism.

Now, we could insert normative givens--e.g. classical liberalism, and what not, but those typically aren't up to compromise. It's like asking people to give up their basic normative values.

[thegreekdog]

I think 'murder is bad' is a dumb argument in any scenario. The only debate of any value for policy is: when is it inefficient to allow one human to kill another?

Unless you're the person that's going to be killed (this is disturbingly ignored by an increasing number of people).

[crispybits]

Snipped for brevity

The problem is that there is no equilibrium for many issues, and that logic itself can't settle the debate so that it brings us to the best policy. For example, many people thought Socialism was a great idea in terms of economic production, efficiency, and fairness, but it took up to the 1930s with the Socialist Calculation debate to logically put their argument to an end. Until then, perhaps arguments against socialism weren't so great, but it didn't follow that socialism was a great idea. With your standards, up to the 1930s, you'd be pushing for Socialism.

Now, we could insert normative givens--e.g. classical liberalism, and what not, but those typically aren't up to compromise. It's like asking people to give up their basic normative values.

I never said we'll come up with the optimal solution every time using purely logic - and secular reasoning doesn't only include cold logic, it still permits emotional appeals etc. What I actually said was that if we allow debate only on secular grounds (whilst allowing anyone to practice any religion they want, and to vote according to the politician whose policies match their religious beliefs as closely as they want) then we'll get to better answers than if someone can hold up a religion card on an issue, shut down the debate, and get power based on that argument. In reality, I don't think many religious people actually do take hard-line voting positions like that (TGD for one is anecdotal evidence of this), but they will be swayed by good arguments from one side or the other within certain non-fundamentalist boundaries, but I also don't underestimate the significant minority (enough to cause power shifts) that will vote based on the book someone is holding up while they speak.

We can look at a lot of decisions, religious or secular or whatever, through the prism of 20-20 hindsight and say "we got this or that wrong", there's no problem with that, as long as every time we make a decision as a society we do it for the right reason and having considered all of the options available. Religious arguments close down this sort of discussion and make it much more likely we'll pick the wrong answer.

[AndyDufresne]

Stumbled onto this on i09 earlier as well. Related to talk of ethics and religion: http://io9.com/5982499/dalai-lama-says- ... lar-ethics

Back in September the Dalai Lama told his Facebook friends that "grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate," and that religion alone cannot foster values such as integrity and compassion. Since that time, the Tibetan Buddhist leader has taken his somewhat surprising message on the road, and is now calling for a global system of secular ethics.

Speaking at the recently concluded Mind & Life Conference in India, the Dalai Lama told attendees that a new global ethical code would be of benefit to everyone, including people who don't follow any particular religion. He said that the new ethics should incorporate the diverse set of values that people of various beliefs hold in common.

"The reason for this is that there are those who have faith in religions and there are many who don't," the Dalai Lama said, adding that even among religious leaders, "there are some who are responsible for injustice, deception, hypocrisy, and exploitation."

Current education, he said, is almost always geared towards economic development, which "neither helps solve individual mental problems nor society-level problems."

"Regardless of whether or not one believes in any religion, the practice of ethical conduct is an urgent, direct need in today's world," the Dalai Lama said.

He noted that based on dialogues with scientists, "it has been proven that being compassionate and kind-hearted is not [exclusively] connected to religion."

...

Lodoe also spoke to psychologist Wilson Hurley, a translator of Tibetan texts, who said the Dalai Lama's proposal ultimately boils down to psychological principles." He elaborated:

"The core principle is that everyone is completely equal in wanting to be happy, not wanting to suffer, wanting to be respected, not wanting to be put down."

"If that's honored, then people thrive and move forward," Hurley said, adding that "His Holiness [the Dalai Lama] says that there's nobody who doesn't appreciate being valued and loved."

"And for people who are able to live that way and raise their kids that way, and for societies that are able to cultivate that in their people, there's a power there. It's a very powerful force."

--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Snipped for brevity

The problem is that there is no equilibrium for many issues, and that logic itself can't settle the debate so that it brings us to the best policy. For example, many people thought Socialism was a great idea in terms of economic production, efficiency, and fairness, but it took up to the 1930s with the Socialist Calculation debate to logically put their argument to an end. Until then, perhaps arguments against socialism weren't so great, but it didn't follow that socialism was a great idea. With your standards, up to the 1930s, you'd be pushing for Socialism.

Now, we could insert normative givens--e.g. classical liberalism, and what not, but those typically aren't up to compromise. It's like asking people to give up their basic normative values.

I never said we'll come up with the optimal solution every time using purely logic - and secular reasoning doesn't only include cold logic, it still permits emotional appeals etc. What I actually said was that if we allow debate only on secular grounds (whilst allowing anyone to practice any religion they want, and to vote according to the politician whose policies match their religious beliefs as closely as they want) then we'll get to better answers than if someone can hold up a religion card on an issue, shut down the debate, and get power based on that argument. In reality, I don't think many religious people actually do take hard-line voting positions like that (TGD for one is anecdotal evidence of this), but they will be swayed by good arguments from one side or the other within certain non-fundamentalist boundaries, but I also don't underestimate the significant minority (enough to cause power shifts) that will vote based on the book someone is holding up while they speak.

We can look at a lot of decisions, religious or secular or whatever, through the prism of 20-20 hindsight and say "we got this or that wrong", there's no problem with that, as long as every time we make a decision as a society we do it for the right reason and having considered all of the options available. Religious arguments close down this sort of discussion and make it much more likely we'll pick the wrong answer.

Oh, okay, thanks for being clearer. I agree with the 'equilibrium + secular reasoning" arguments in regard to the religious aspect, but I'm not so certain that "secular reasoning + political means/democracy" really reinforces your ideal goal toward secular reasoning. If anything, I see the continued use (or rather abuse) of the political means results in steps further from secular reasoning--and more into a delusional environment where the limits of the state's capability for problem-solving are imagined away. In turn, this further shuts down secular reasoning since more people essentially view the state as their god, Democracy.

[mrswdk]

I think 'murder is bad' is a dumb argument in any scenario. The only debate of any value for policy is: when is it inefficient to allow one human to kill another?

Unless you're the person that's going to be killed (this is disturbingly ignored by an increasing number of people).

I guess it depends on whether you prioritize 'the greater good' or not.

[crispybits]

Oh, okay, thanks for being clearer. I agree with the 'equilibrium + secular reasoning" arguments in regard to the religious aspect, but I'm not so certain that "secular reasoning + political means/democracy" really reinforces your ideal goal toward secular reasoning. If anything, I see the continued use (or rather abuse) of the political means results in steps further from secular reasoning--and more into a delusional environment where the limits of the state's capability for problem-solving are imagined away. In turn, this further shuts down secular reasoning since more people essentially view the state as their god, Democracy.

The point (in this thread at least) isn't that secular reasoning + politics will give us the best possible answer - that would be silly - it's that religious dogma + politics is likely to give a worse answer than secular reasoning + politics. If someone comes up with an even better way to find a right answer each time than secular reasoning + politics and can demonstrate why it's better then I'll support that instead.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, I'm trying to waver us from religion because it's a tired debate.

Regarding your last sentence, a good case can be made in favor of more secular reasoning + less politics. We agree on x (s. reasoning), so the debate hinges on the various degrees of y (politics).

[crispybits]

And this is where our focus (and posting habits) tend to drift apart somewhat. I'm more interested in trying to work out how to prevent one problem as I see it (religion) and you're more interesed in trying to prevent another (politics). It could be that we're both right or both wrong or any combination in between (it's likely we actually agree on 90% of the fundamentals).

But, because you've piqued my interest, what do you replace the politics with in order to ensure that society works towards the "best" goals and methods that secular reasoning would provide in your scenario? I don't think a free market model would work for the same reasons that I don't think a marxist/communist model works - the inherent selfishness/corruption of large sections of humanity and their willingness to bend/break rules put in place to protect the weaker/less influential members of society.

[Phatscotty]

I don't give a crap about gay marriage. I just think it's bogus to tell religious people that their morals cannot play any part in their country's policy and then in the same breath say that other morals are legitimate policy guides.

no shit eh?

That's exactly what we are doing, pedal to the metal.

I think the hubbub between the Cheney daughters is a great example.

[BigBallinStalin]

And this is where our focus (and posting habits) tend to drift apart somewhat. I'm more interested in trying to work out how to prevent one problem as I see it (religion) and you're more interesed in trying to prevent another (politics). It could be that we're both right or both wrong or any combination in between (it's likely we actually agree on 90% of the fundamentals).

But, because you've piqued my interest, what do you replace the politics with in order to ensure that society works towards the "best" goals and methods that secular reasoning would provide in your scenario? I don't think a free market model would work for the same reasons that I don't think a marxist/communist model works - the inherent selfishness/corruption of large sections of humanity and their willingness to bend/break rules put in place to protect the weaker/less influential members of society.

Granted that humans are generally self-interested, I don't see how concentrating further power into one political organization will somehow ameliorate such consequences. Stronger federal/national governments reduce the costs of collusion. Of course, there is generally some minimal role for the state, so I don't have good enough arguments to launch for a 100% free market model, but beyond the minimal I've found the statist arguments to be lacking.

[smegal69]

'Not to share wealth with poor is to steal': Pope slams capitalism as 'new tyranny ......... tear it down!!! down with Capitalism!


full story:
http://rt.com/news/pope-francis-capital ... bject_map=[642715179104456]&action_type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=[%22.UpWL_epO3W4.like%22

[Phatscotty]

Capitalism is good, not perfect. but that doesn't mean that every single person who is involved or practices capitalism is good and cannot be corrupted or greedy. human nature does not change no matter what system they are living under. It can vary to degrees, but it's not like under a different system there would be no greed, corruption, or exploitation.

I'm sticking with blaming it on the people. Collectively, our morals are gone, we are more and more turning our back on what made us exceptional (our heritage and our traditions and our values) our knowledge base is shrinking, our currency is being evermore debased (with further demands to borrow/print more money), people stand against wisdom and make sure there are no generalizations, and people care more about being PC than they care about honesty or honor. That makes lies and half truths all the more easy to turn into the narrative of the day and have a significant number of people subscribing to it (see Zimmerman)

[AndyDufresne]

'm sticking with blaming it on the people. Collectively, our morals are gone, we are more and more turning our back on what made us exceptional (our heritage and our traditions and our values) our knowledge base is shrinking, our currency is being evermore debased (with further demands to borrow/print more money), people stand against wisdom and make sure there are no generalizations, and people care more about being PC than they care about honesty or honor. That makes lies and half truths all the more easy to turn into the narrative of the day and have a significant number of people subscribing to it (see Zimmerman)

I don't buy most of this. This is same sort of dreck each generation says about their own time, a la the Golden Age syndrome.


--Andy

[mrswdk]

Just because certain values and traditions worked 60 or 70 years ago doesn't mean they will keep working if applied in 2013 or 2014. Sometimes you have to evolve.

[saxitoxin]

Limbaugh declares Pope is a Marxist.

Pope Francis: Successor to St. Peter ... the people's pontiff ... Marxist?

That's what conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh suggests, calling the Pope's latest document "pure Marxism."

Limbaugh blasted the pontiff on Wednesday, a day after Francis released "Evangelii Gaudium" (The Joy of the Gospel), a 50,000-word statement that calls for church reform and castigates elements of modern capitalism.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/0 ... -the-pope/

Is it time the Pope just admit that he's not only a Marxist, but also a Muslim?

[AndyDufresne]

Limbaugh declares Pope is a Marxist.

Pope Francis: Successor to St. Peter ... the people's pontiff ... Marxist?

That's what conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh suggests, calling the Pope's latest document "pure Marxism."

Limbaugh blasted the pontiff on Wednesday, a day after Francis released "Evangelii Gaudium" (The Joy of the Gospel), a 50,000-word statement that calls for church reform and castigates elements of modern capitalism.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/0 ... -the-pope/

Is it time the Pope just admit that he's not only a Marxist, but also a Muslim?

Probably. Benedict converted to Islam after he resigned (check the interwebz), and he likely also quit because he found out Islam was right. Evidence: http://islamnewsroom.com/news-we-need/2 ... ient-bible


--Andy

[saxitoxin]

Limbaugh declares Pope is a Marxist.

Pope Francis: Successor to St. Peter ... the people's pontiff ... Marxist?

That's what conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh suggests, calling the Pope's latest document "pure Marxism."

Limbaugh blasted the pontiff on Wednesday, a day after Francis released "Evangelii Gaudium" (The Joy of the Gospel), a 50,000-word statement that calls for church reform and castigates elements of modern capitalism.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/0 ... -the-pope/

Is it time the Pope just admit that he's not only a Marxist, but also a Muslim?

Probably. Benedict converted to Islam after he resigned (check the interwebz), and he likely also quit because he found out Islam was right. Evidence: http://islamnewsroom.com/news-we-need/2 ... ient-bible


--Andy

True. Plus, with this new Mexican pope they've got it makes everything even more suspect.

The 3 Ms: Marxist, Muslim, Mexican.

[AndyDufresne]

True. Plus, with this new Mexican pope they've got it makes everything even more suspect.

The 3 Ms: Marxist, Muslim, Mexican.

That's more M's than I am comfortable with. I think it's time to make this Pope move. Or melse.


--Andy

[crispybits]

Madness....

[Phatscotty]

show