Advice to libertarian fathers, + religion & the free society

[Aristippus]

Well I think we agree on quite a few points, Clayton, but I thought I would still clear some things up:

You can’t get much more anti-humanist than that.

Exactly.

Well, I think your view of the Church is overly forgiving.

I never really commented on the Church overall. I was talking merely about the results of the Reformation, which created a situation worse than that which proceeded it. Catholicism was obviously not perfect, but the other sects were and are even less so. Your criticisms of the Catholic Church, therefore, don’t really apply to what I was referring to: Catholicism itself. In fact, for the entire thread you were arguing that it is not religion in itself that causes wars, but states. Now you bring up an exception and argue that the Catholic religion does in fact cause wars!! Any particular state structure of a Papacy is not integral to Catholicism.

The Church played a huge role in sanctioning, endorsing and enabling the oppression of the State and, in turn, received assistance from the State in pressing its own agenda of religious monopoly.

Well the Church was just as much in competition with states as it was in cooperation with them. And here I’m talking specifically about voluntary relationships - especially the option of having one’s cases heard in religious courts vs. other options. That’s an example of a means through which the religion evolved according to its utility in earthly matters.

Also it seems to me that you’re viewing the Medieval period as extremely statist and hampered as a result of that. In reality, it was a period where there was much opportunity for competing legal systems, including the Lex Mercatoria. Across the period there was a great economic and population growth, and unseen urbanisation in Europe. I couldn’t believe that you referred to the ‘schackles’ of the Holy Roman Emperor - the so-called ‘Empire’ was in Medieval times very decentralised and extremely libertarian compared to the Europe of today. Note that the divine right of kings did not exist until after the Reformation and that Medieval writers were staunch defenders of the concept of tyrannicide.

A tremendous amount of energy was unleashed in the Reformation and it is impossible to believe that that was just “anti-humanist reactionism”.

Placing the key emphasis only on God and faith and rejecting man and his works can’t be viewed in this way.

Well, in a direct comparison, I think the best that can be said is that both are founded on a fradulent document filled with outrageously evil moral lessons

But that’s what’s key to my point - that the Protestants wanted to use this document to a much greater extent, while the Catholics emphasised their own evolving tradition and its use to man. Really the more I think about it Catholicism was very much like the ‘First Church of Mises’ that we’ve discussed: it is primarily a means to the end of human cooperation and flourishing, but employs a non-rational apparatus to tie it all together. The most important part of the founding document of the Catholic church was in fact the Golden Rule and its temporal application.

Have you read any works by Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn? To him, extreme Catholicism is anarchic.

indulgences are a sham

How are they a sham? This is all they were: ‘The Catholic Church believes by x action you have committed a sin. We the Catholic Church (not God!) will consider that you have made amends for that sin should you pay y amount’. It was simply a fine for committing offences to society, in fact they really had little to do with religion.

[ClaytonB]

@Aristippus: Well, I think we’ll have to disagree on certain points regarding the Church.

Now you bring up an exception and argue that the Catholic religion does in fact cause wars!!

It seems to me that you distinguish between the beliefs of Catholics and the central organization that administers the Catholic Church (the Church of Rome, now seated in the Vatican). So, clearly you can see it is possible for “the Catholic religion” (the beliefs of Catholics) to be pious while Rome itself is corrupt. This was the central contention of the Protestant Reformers and it certainly resonated with people.

In fact, Luther was not a separatist even as a late as the nailing of the 95 Theses. I think it was really the nobles, such as Prince Frederick, who took what was really a pretty arcane theological dispute and turned it into a power gambit against Rome. I think the flames of the Reformation didn’t spread without a little help from some friends. I haven’t had time to research this thought any further than that so don’t expect me to try to back it up.

Any particular state structure of a Papacy is not integral to Catholicism.

But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that Catholicism (and I do mean Roman Catholicism, that is, the Western Church) is not just a core set of beliefs distinct from the paper positions of Rome itself that is responsible for “evolving” those beliefs over time and, at the same time, assert that there is no structure integral to Catholicism. Either Catholicism is what Rome says it is or Catholicism stands on its own apart from Rome.

I’m truly baffled how you can seem to think that the freeing of the market (literally) in religious belief and organization that did, in fact, occur in the Reformation was a net negative. Having seen the negative effects of some strains of Protestantism first-hand, I’m the last to say that Protestantism was in every way an improvement over Catholicism but there is nothing positive about the territorial monopoly on religion that was operated by the Catholics (granted, only by virtue of the assistance of the various monarchs of Europe) or later by the Protestants. But at least in the case of Protestant religious monopolies, there was a “de-globalization” which I see as positive. If you hated the Calvinists, you at least had the possibility you might be able to move to a Catholic or Lutheran nation, still in Europe. Before the Reformation, if you didn’t like the religion, you had to leave the continent.

Clayton -

[Aristippus]

In fact, Luther was not a separatist even as a late as the nailing of the 95 Theses.

That doesn’t matter though. The point was that the Reformation movement rejected the human for the purely divine. Let’s say it remained a particular Catholic order. I would still think it’s missing the point.

But you can’t have it both ways.

I’m not having it both ways. I’m saying that because it evolves, there is no particular historical structure that is integral to Catholicism.

the freeing of the market (literally) in religious belief

How was it literally freeing the market? All that happened was that the state took over whatever powers the Church had, and then was able to add more since it had greater power than either the state or the church had beforehand. That, as one example, is a reason why it was a net negative. In addition to that, the ideas and worldview that it promoted, as well as the shift in the focus of religious institutions, led via Enlightenment statolatry to the statolatry of today, which prevents society from undoing the growth of the state.

territorial monopoly on religion

What does that mean? Even before the Reformation, different aspects of the religion could be emphasised and offerred, leading to the evolution in societal mores. As you said yourself, Luther’s movement need not have resulted in the splintering of the Church. In terms of the use of force, the Church was in competition with various state and non-state institutions, as I noted earlier. Eliminating the Church from this competition was one means by which the states were able to create their monopoly on law-making.

This isn’t even to mention the millions of people who died and the enormous destruction caused by the religious wars that followed (which most certainly cannot be just blamed on Catholicism).

[ClaytonB]

The point was that the Reformation movement rejected the human for the purely divine. Let’s say it remained a particular Catholic order. I would still think it’s missing the point.

Yes, that’s a negative. But it also rejected clerical intercession with God for direct individual contact with God. No more did you need the Church’s forgiveness (as you note, the logical basis of the Indulgences), you could obtain forgiveness from God directly on your own behalf. While the whole concept of being sinful is anti-humanist in the first place, the Protestant view is an improvement when viewed from the perspective of its conduciveness to human liberty (all the conditions for self-determination reside within the self).

I’m saying that because it evolves, there is no particular historical structure that is integral to Catholicism.

OK, then I think you’re equivocating. The Roman cult is unambiguous in their auto-biographical history. The church of Rome was founded by Peter - the first Pope - in Jerusalem and later relocated to Rome where it became the Church of Rome, that is, the Roman Catholic (Universal) Church. There has been an unbroken succession of Popes from Peter down to Benedict XVI and the organization ruled over by each of these Popes has been the same Church as that mentioned in Roman dogma that, “There is no salvation outside the Church.” I see no wiggle room here for an “evolving organization” with “no particular historical structure.” Sure, there weren’t arch-bishops and cardinals at the time of Peter but he was the leader of the only Church authorized by the Son of God when He departed from Earth almost 2000 years ago.

What does that mean? Even before the Reformation, different aspects of the religion could be emphasised and offerred, leading to the evolution in societal mores. As you said yourself, Luther’s movement need not have resulted in the splintering of the Church. In terms of the use of force, the Church was in competition with various state and non-state institutions, as I noted earlier. Eliminating the Church from this competition was one means by which the states were able to create their monopoly on law-making.

*shrug - I’m really struggling to see how your view of the Church can follow at all from purely humanistic perspective. There is no reason to suppose that opposition to the State’s oppressions - a function that the Church performed whenever it suited its own purposes - can only be effective or even is most effective when centralized into a single organization.

This isn’t even to mention the millions of people who died and the enormous destruction caused by the religious wars that followed (which most certainly cannot be just blamed on Catholicism).

But the religious wars - as I have been claiming in this thread and which you hinted above you may agree with - were not started by religion, whether Protestant or Catholic. War often involves a particular kind of mania or panic and while that mania can arise in very sporadic instances without centralized organization, for the most part, any example of intense, organized war sentiment is always the result of centralized direction. It is always the Generals and monarchs (or Generals, Presidents and the behind-the-scenes-Elites today) who are responsible for this.

Whenever it is useful to the ends of propaganda, the war-mongers shrewdly appeal to the religious beliefs of the public but it is a signal mistake, in my view, to say that religion causes war, in any sense. Anyone who really understands the differences between the Roman and Greek churches or the Protestants should understand that there’s literally nothing there to come to arms over, even if some of the less articulate have occasionally come to fists.

Clayton -

[Aristippus]

(all the conditions for self-determination reside within the self)

Nope, according to the doctrine they come from God only. At least in Catholicism, human institutions are of great importance.

The Roman cult is unambiguous in their auto-biographical history.

Yes and the organisation and doctrines of the Church have changed many, many times in that history. That’s all I was talking about.

There is no reason to suppose that opposition to the State’s oppressions - a function that the Church performed whenever it suited its own purposes - can only be effective or even is most effective when centralized into a single organization.

I’m not supposing that at all. I’m talking about the specific historical circumstances and the anti-humanism of Protestantism vs. the humanism of Catholicism.

But the religious wars - as I have been claiming in this thread and which you hinted above you may agree with - were not started by religion, whether Protestant or Catholic.

Yeah, I was talking about the historical consequences of the Reformation.

[John_James]

Clayton, in addition to the points I raise and questions I ask above (which you have yet to address), I found this to be quite appropriate, as it flies directly in the face of your claims about religion “not entailing the use or threat of violence”…

Sam Harris: What happens if you really follow the bible

Sam Harris: What happens if you really follow the bible

And just for fun measure:

And to your point about “voluntary”, I found this to be quite relevant…

(From TomWoods.com):

“The State is not force alone,” said H.L. Mencken. ”It depends upon the credulity of man quite as much as upon his docility. Its aim is not merely to make him obey, but also to make him want to obey.”

Thanks to Sam Geoghegan for this quotation, which I had never seen before. Rothbard cites it, I’ve since discovered.

[ClaytonB]

1. You claim “religion has always been a royal pain in the backside of the State”. Do you deny that this is by and large because the underlying nature of religion is the same as the State in that it is inclined to the play the same role the State does of dictating your life, and the government hates competition. (As most proponants of monopoly do.)?

The underlying nature of religion is not the same as the State at all. I do not understand where this conflation of religion and State arises. The State is the agent of legitimate aggression in society. What does religion have to do with aggression? You get beat up if you don’t attend church? You are defrauded when you put cash in the offering plate?

2. You claim that “Wars are not caused by religion”. Do you deny that throughout history religion is often the mcguffin in the war narrative. People are motivated to go to war, feel justified in conducting war, and are willing to do things they would never do otherwise without the belief of God on their side…due to religious beliefs, more than any other source?

And King and country and so on. War infuses the entire culture and it is a canard to blame it all on religion.

3. You allege that religion is just as monopolistic as Walmart. Do you deny there is a difference between inherent dictates that control one’s life that make up religion, and the profit-driven monopolistic tendencies of a company?

From the point of view of praxeology, the telos of Wal-Mart and the Vatican are the same.

4. You ask “so long as they don’t use force or fraud (or government, which is the same) to bring about a monopoly, how do their ambitions harm anyone else?”…seemingly as if to imply religious ambitions haven’t / don’t lead individuals to harm others. Do you really believe that to be the case?

For the vast, vast majority of the case, yes. The Mayans or ancient worshippers of Molech are exceptions, of course. And wherever a religion has become enfolded into the State by virtue of State-compelled attendance and “donation”, it is no longer a harmless entity… but neither is it “just religion” anymore, it’s a State-religion. This is like the difference between the Reich’s Krupp Steel versus, say, US Steel. Fascist, state-owned steel corporations are no longer “just steel producers”, they are an organ of the State itself.

5. You talk of “role of religion in free society”, as if “religion” is a necessary condition for such a society…do you believe that is the case?

I’ll say it this way: religion is a necessary symptom of a free society for the same reason toothpaste is a necessary symptom of a free society - there exists an inherent demand for both and only in an oppressive society would its production be suppressed.

(Unless of course you wish to stick with your definition of “religion” as “people who are voluntarily seeking advice and guidance from other people who are recognized for their wisdom and insight”. In that case, I’m not sure there will be much more to talk about, as when a couple of kids asking their grandfather how to construct a good slingshot becomes a perfect example of “religion”, I’m afraid I don’t really have much more interest in persuing the line of conversation.

I already explained the difference - advice in the sense of seeking guidance from someone who specializes in giving advice for difficult situations. This is not the only role of religion but I think it’s a good counterpoint definition to the Reason-crowd’s caricature that religion = superstition.

6. You seem to be implying that just because religion is often a “royal pain in the backside of the State”, it automatically means religion is anti-Statism or pro-liberty.

Well, that’s clearly not the case. But the problem isn’t just being pro- or anti-liberty, it’s much too complex to be reduced to such simplifications. The State is an imperialist, it divides and conquers through isolation or it joins and conquers through internal strife. A political map also showing tribal boundaries in colonial Africa is a picture-book lesson in the art of imperial subjugation.

Clayton -

[ClaytonB]

@JJ: I don’t disagree with anything Sam Harris says. I can give more examples off the top of my head than he gave in that segment. So what? 50 Cent’s lyrics also entail the use of violence in precisely the same sense. So what? The point is that beliefs and advocacy are merely words and thoughts. It is only behavior that can be aggressive, that is, behavior that is fraudulent or an initiation of violence.

Clayton -

[John_James]

@Clayton

The underlying nature of religion is not the same as the State at all. I do not understand where this conflation of religion and State arises.

You just quoted it: “the underlying nature of religion is the same as the State in that it is inclined to the play the same role the State does of dictating your life…”

The State is the agent of legitimate aggression in society.

And religion doesn’t legitimize aggression? That’s certainly a new one.

What does religion have to do with aggression? You get beat up if you don’t attend church? You are defrauded when you put cash in the offering plate?

Seriously? No, seriously?

it is a canard to blame it all on religion.

I honestly thought straw men were beneath you…but given how many times you’ve invoked this fallacy in this discussion alone, evidently I was wrong.

I already explained the difference - advice in the sense of seeking guidance from someone who specializes in giving advice for difficult situations.

Okay, so just pretend the children’s grandfather is a psychiatrist. Now it’s religion when they go to him for instruction on their slingshot construction? Or do they need to ask him for emotional or spiritual advice? Then the therapy session qualifies as religion?

Also, by what metric does one determine a religion is “quack”?

[John_James]

@Clayton

@JJ: I don’t disagree with anything Sam Harris says. I can give more examples off the top of my head than he gave in that segment. So what? 50 Cent’s lyrics also entail the use of violence in precisely the same sense. So what? The point is that beliefs and advocacy are merely words and thoughts. It is only behavior that can be aggressive, that is, behavior that is fraudulent or an initiation of violence.

“so what”? He literally contradicts the very core of your premise, citing specific examples (of which you claim you could offer even more.)

Your whole claim is that religion “does not entail the use or threat of violence”. Obviously it does. You straw man the point by posing false scenarios (e.g.

“you suggesting they tithe because the preacher has a gun in their ribs?”

“You get beat up if you don’t attend church? You are defrauded when you put cash in the offering plate?”)

And yet here, when you are presented with actual (and more severe) examples of religion entailing the use of violence, your response is “so what”. So it would seem your statement upon which it seems a great deal of your notion of religion is built, is wrong. That’s what.

[ClaytonB]

Nope, according to the doctrine they come from God only. At least in Catholicism, human institutions are of great importance.

You’re missing the point. In my view, there are two levels at operation in religious belief. The first is the “surface-level”, that is, the simple import of the beliefs-as-they-are, for example, Sola Fide (works don’t matter, it’s all up to God). But then, there is a slightly deeper level which is psychological, that is, the net effect of the beliefs and behaviors of a particular religion on the psyche of the individual.

The presence/absence of the sacrament of confession, for example, is a perfect example of this. Theologically, the debate over the validity of confession is arcane stuff; eye-wateringly boring. But its effects are profound. I’m throwing this out there because it’s such a complicated one in terms of its net benefits/costs to the individual. On one level, I think the absence of confessional is a net negative to mainline Protestants vis-a-vis Catholics. There’s something deeply cathartic about getting stuff “off your chest” in a safe, unconditionally non-judgmental environment. But on another level, you see how the same concept can be abused as in the Mormon or Scientological versions of it - and it is impossible to believe that it is never used for surveillance within the Roman church, as well.

At the deeper level, I believe Catholicism encourages a feeling of isolation or distance from God (the Ultimate/Absolute), which weakens the will in the sense that it says, psychologically, “there is always a layer of insulation between your will and its effects on the Universe (God)”. You may try to act, but only if your attempts are consistent with the Earthly institutions, that is, the status quo, will they be able to have any effect in the world. It is the job of God’s Earthly institution (the Church) to act as a proxy for God (the vicarious role of the Pope) and to intercede on the behalf of the individual to God.

Protestantism eliminates this and says the individual may directly appeal to God without any Earthly intermediaries. This is an improvement vis-a-vis the psychological implications to acting. The individual who acts directly on the Universe itself does so without second-guessing or waiting for approval. The individual who must submit his plans and proposals for review to an Earthly intermediary before they are passed along to the Universe is lethargic by comparison.

But, in the end, both Protestantism and Catholicism are built on a rotten foundation - the Bible. This is why we need to return - really return this time - to the Ancients. The blue-sky metaphysics of the Greeks, the suppressed religious traditions of Europe, the Middle East, Asia, etc. the astrological, pagan and pantheistic religions of yore are all a rich source of ancient-yet-fresh ideas that are not wholly disconnected from the corpus of cultural knolwedge about human nature acquired over the millenia, unlike invented religions such as Mormonism or Scient0logy. I disagree that the RCC even comes close to satisfying the ideals I have in mind when discussing the possibility of a modern religious reformation.

Clayton -

[ClaytonB]

@JJ: Well, let’s assume that the Biblical records of Leviticus are authentic records of Mosaic law, as practiced by the ancient Israelites for centuries. In that case, we can simply note that the culture itself was frankly aggressive. It was a society infused with aggression. Until they had a King, these laws couldn’t have been said to have been the result of the State because there simply wasn’t a State. Which leaves open the question of who administered the business of murdering people left and right without consequence. The judges? They had no power to comple anything, they were pretty much like the free-market arbitrators we talk about on these forums. The priests? Well, until the Kingship was established, the priests had zero earthly authority and were simply administrators of the temples or high-places of their respective deity (yes, there were more than one during the time period in Palestine that the Old Testament supposedly documents). There’s a lot of missing or wrong information in the Pentateuch, a point which Sam Harris himself would agree with.

Your whole claim is that religion “does not entail the use or threat of violence”. Obviously it does. You straw man the point by posing false scenarios (e.g. “you suggesting they tithe because the preacher has a gun in their ribs?” “You get beat up if you don’t attend church? You are defrauded when you put cash in the offering plate?”)

And yet here, when you are presented with actual (and more severe) examples of religion entailing the use of violence, your response is “so what”. So it would seem your statement upon which it seems a great deal of your notion of religion is built, is wrong. That’s what.

A book with a record of vicious laws is not aggressive. The Inquisition was aggressive. Yet we can show, historically, the connection between the State (the universal agent of aggression) and the Inquisition. Harris’s inferences regarding stoning disobedient children to death are not indications that he believes that this is a historical record of life as it really was in Palestine circa 1000BC, rather, he is addressing his points to fundamentalists in order to challenge their belief that this is a historical record of life as it really was in Palestine circa 1000BC. That’s glaringly obvious.

Clayton -

[John_James]

@Clayton

let’s assume that the Biblical records of Leviticus are authentic records of Mosaic law, as practiced by the ancient Israelites for centuries.

…you’re suggesting the Bible is flawed? Blasphemy.

In that case, we can simply note that the culture itself was frankly aggressive.

So you’re saying it’s not that the word of God dictates aggression…it’s that the people themselves were “frankly aggressive”, so their religius books reflected that? Again that sounds like you’re suggesting the Pentateuch is not only flawed, but here it even sounds like you’re suggesting it’s not even the word of God…

It was a society infused with aggression.

…and of course being so focused on the religious following of the aggressive word of God had absolutely nothing to do with that.

There’s a lot of missing or wrong information in the Pentateuch, a point which Sam Harris himself would agree with.

Could you offer some examples of what exactly is “missing” or “wrong” about those books? Also, a reference for Sam Harris saying such would be great.

Harris’s inferences regarding stoning disobedient children to death are not indications that he believes that this is a historical record of life as it really was in Palestine circa 1000BC, rather, he is addressing his points to fundamentalists in order to challenge their belief that this is a historical record of life as it really was in Palestine circa 1000BC. That’s glaringly obvious.

What? Did we watch the same clip? He literally says how the Bible is so sadistic that “not even an orthodox Christian or fundamentalist Jew can take God at his word”…that “we have effectively edited the Bible…even fundamentalists have.”

His entire point in that clip is to illustrate that the dictates contained in “the word of God” are so sadistic that if they were followed, happiness would basically be impossible…so that we have essentially disregarded those parts of the holy books. And not only that, but this has been done without even condemning those dictates as “immoral”. He’s trying to show the inconsistencies and the contradictions perpetuated in religion itself.

I am quite astounded that you could watch Harris say all this and instead interpret it to mean that he’s simply trying to convince fundamentalists that the Bible isn’t an accurate historical record. I honestly have no idea how you come up with this.

Getting back to the point, I’ll quote him directly:

“…this idea that without religion, something fundamental would be lost to us…”

[sounds a lot like something you would say.]

“[Leviticus] paints a vision of life so needlessly horrible — so subversive of the basic project of creating a sustainable society where human happiness is even possible.”

[Here it sounds like he’s directly contradicting your notion of religion and its role in society…where you state it is a necessary symptom he’s pointing out how it’s dictates promote the exact opposite.]

“You find that a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, you stone her to death. You stone homosexuals to death. If your kids talk back to you, you stone them to death. You go into a town and you see someone praying to a foreign god, you kill him, you kill his family, you kill everyone in the town. These are not metaphores, these are not analogies for some spiritual struggle within…these are explicit directives to kill people for theological crimes.”

He goes on and on. He speaks on the Inquisition and killing people for thought crimes. It’s like that clip was made specifically for you, to refute your underlying premise here. A major part of your entire position is that religion “does not entail the use or threat of violence”. When presented with examples directly contradicting this, you even admit: “Until they had a King, these laws couldn’t have been said to have been the result of the State because there simply wasn’t a State.” So you’ve basically conceded the point…that this violence is not only religiously based, but can’t even be blamed on your fallback scapegoat “State-infused religion”.

I honestly have no idea where you think your position here remains standing.

[Aristippus]

But then, there is a slightly deeper level which is psychological, that is, the net effect of the beliefs and behaviors of a particular religion on the psyche of the individual.

Well, I disagree with your psychological assessment.

his is why we need to return - really return this time - to the Ancients.

The Ancients whom the Catholics promoted and the Protestants rejected? Oh ok.

I disagree that the RCC even comes close to satisfying the ideals I have in mind when discussing the possibility of a modern religious reformation.

A century ago it might have been an option, but today it has taken huge influences from Protestantism, modernism, and Marxism. So I agree that there isn’t much use trying to revive it.

[ClaytonB]

So you’re saying it’s not that the word of God dictates aggression…it’s that the people themselves were “frankly aggressive”, so their religius books reflected that? Again that sounds like you’re suggesting the Pentateuch is not only flawed, but here it even sounds like you’re suggesting it’s not even the word of God…

And not only is it not the word of God but it’s of no use whatsoever, not even to indict an ancient culture that is, as far as we know, completely ahistorical. The picture of the Israelites painted in the Hebrew Scriptures is deeply incongruous with any picture of human culture in that region around that time that can be painted from any other source, historical, archaeological, anthropological, etc. This is a central contention of skepticism since at least the time of the Higher Criticism.

…and of course being so focused on the religious following of the aggressive word of God had absolutely nothing to do with that.

See above.

Could you offer some examples of what exactly is “missing” or “wrong” about those books? Also, a reference for Sam Harris saying such would be great.

I’m inferring this from the fact that Sam Harris is a skeptic and that all skeptics I’m aware of reject outright the historicity of the Bible.

Problems with the Bible start with no mention of the Israelites (who were supposedly a very powerful kingdom) by the Egyptians or other contemporary cultures. Are they a complete fabrication? I don’t know. Then there are the textual problems. The entire subject became an area of academic study in Germany in the 19th century.

He’s trying to show the inconsistencies and the contradictions perpetuated in religion itself.

One of which is the inconsistency of even attributing factuality to the historical narratives in the Bible in the first place.

I am quite astounded that you could watch Harris say all this and instead interpret it to mean that he’s simply trying to convince fundamentalists that the Bible isn’t an accurate historical record. I honestly have no idea how you come up with this.

That’s not what I said. His point is what you described it to be. My point is that Harris does not himself hold the Herbew Bible to be a historical record so he is not making factual assertions about life under religious extremism, he is making counter-factual assertions about life under religious extremism. “If the Bible is true, then …” but, of course, the Bible isn’t true.

“…this idea that without religion, something fundamental would be lost to us…”

[sounds a lot like something you would say.]

Yes, I and I do disagree with Harris on this point not only in this lecture but in other lectures of his. I think he is generally uncareful in his definitions - like you - and plays fast and loose with the word “religion”, at times equating it with superstition, at other times equating it with specific, historical religions and at other time using it in its broadest possible sense (religion-in-the-abstract). His points as they relate to debunking fundamentalism certainly stand on their merits but as they relate to making the case for a religion-free future, I think they are very hollow and not well thought out.

“[Leviticus] paints a vision of life so needlessly horrible — so subversive of the basic project of creating a sustainable society where human happiness is even possible.”

[Here it sounds like he’s directly contradicting your notion of religion and its role in society…where you state it is a necessary symptom he’s pointing out how it’s dictates promote the exact opposite.]

Where have I ever espoused Leviticus??

“You find that a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, you stone her to death. You stone homosexuals to death. If your kids talk back to you, you stone them to death. You go into a town and you see someone praying to a foreign god, you kill him, you kill his family, you kill everyone in the town. These are not metaphores, these are not analogies for some spiritual struggle within…these are explicit directives to kill people for theological crimes.”

He goes on and on. He speaks on the Inquisition and killing people for thought crimes. It’s like that clip was made specifically for you, to refute your underlying premise here. A major part of your entire position is that religion “does not entail the use or threat of violence”.

It does not necessarily entail violence. I’ve already mentioned the Mayans and and worshippers of Molech as ilustrative exceptions, so of course it is not the case that religion does not ever entail violence. Rockefeller really did use hired guns to break strikes so I guess that means that the oil industry entails the use of violence, doesn’t it?

When presented with examples directly contradicting this, you even admit: “Until they had a King, these laws couldn’t have been said to have been the result of the State because there simply wasn’t a State.” So you’ve basically conceded the point…that this violence is not only religiously based, but can’t even be blamed on your fallback scapegoat “State-infused religion”.

I honestly have no idea where you think your position here remains standing.

The point is that the Biblical record just doesn’t make sense and that’s a good hint that it’s simply false, that is, fabricated.

Clayton -

[ClaytonB]

So I agree that there isn’t much use trying to revive it.

For my own clarification, can you give me any hints as to where you are coming from, philosophically, overall? You say “So” as in because the Church has been corrupted from what it was before - by the influences of Protestantism - therefore, there isn’t much use in trying to revive it.

Are you coming to this assessment from a purely humanistic point-of-view? That is, do you think that the Catholic church before circa 1800 just happened to be the “best recipe” ever discovered for preserving/maintaining/propagating humanistic values? And that this can be seen from purely a humanistic starting point (i.e. without attributing any authenticity to the Church’s claims of divine favor and uniqueness?) If so, that is a view I’ve not encountered before.

Clayton -

[Aristippus]

No, I don’t think it was the best recipe ever discovered. But it was established and already recognised by many as a beneficial social institution (and yes, it was also better than it is today overall). At that time, then, it was possibly the best existing means of propagating and upholding the values of traditional morality and the Golden Rule - but this doesn’t mean that it was the best possible or that it is necessarily the best today. Neither of the latter are true in my opinion.

[ClaytonB]

Neither of the latter are true in my opinion.

Interesting. What are your thoughts on the Great Schism? I’ve read about the Byzantine church a bit and I think there are a lot of aspects of their theology that are superior to the Western church, not only in terms of their psychological implications but even when taken at face value. For example, apophatic theology is much more akin to something you might find in the Tao Te Ching or some Buddhist texts in terms of the approach to describing the attributes of God. To say it another way, I’m certain that the God described by the Western church does not exist but I really can’t say the same thing about the God (god?) described by the Eastern church. Unlike Protestantism, the Eastern church retains all the attributes of Catholicism that you have mentioned here as net positives vis-a-vis Protestantism. Thoughts?

Clayton -

[Aristippus]

You’re likely right. I was focusing on the western half of the Schism, but the Eastern Church might be a better institution than Roman Catholicism in terms of what we were discussing, especially since it has probably preserved its traditions to a much greater degree than the Western Church has. Also, it has a much smaller political significance than does the Catholic church of today (while in the Middle Ages, the Patriarch of Constantinople was perhaps more influenced by political circumstances than even the Pope). I’ll look into it further.

The Great Schism itself was much more a result of politics than was the Reformation.