As far as Asian philosophies go, Taoism would have too explicitly challenged the power of the state, as it urged moving along with nature and life instead of working to force change, simplicity instead of action.
I reckon that’s why it was pushed aside in favour of Legalism.
Interestingly, Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity, have a little rule called Romans 13. This rule says that you obey your leaders, because they are delegated by God to protect you. If it means following the leader’s immoral orders to kill or punish people, you must. The leader will be accountable to God for it, and not you. Thus, Christians in USSR had to assist in purges; Christians in the Iraqi military had to consent to killing Kurds; Christians in Nazi Germany had to serve their nation in war no matter how much they disagreed with Hitler; and so on. It’s an unfortunate little rule, but I guess that’s why Christianity survives while Taoism gets brushed aside.
On the other hand, Asian philosophy has contributed to a lot of ideas of amoral brutality. Kautilya’s Arthashatra (literally, Statecraft) was the textbook on Hindu leadership in kingdoms of South Asia. This text argued that the king must use mild persuasion, then bribery, then intimidation, then forced imprisonment and confiscation of property to get his way with anybody he wanted. It was not only the king’s right, but his duty to kill and oppress his enemies, and bring more under his power, so that he could enrichen his coffers. The idea was that as long as the king prospered and grew powerful, everything else around him is able to grow and prosper as well.
That kings in South Asia were brought up under rigid tutelage of Arthashatri thinking was reflected in the many needless wars and the resultant depopulation of many kingdoms. The reason for erotic imagery on Indian temples is that wars had brought populations so low, that the king had to encourage people to make more babies so that anything survived of his kingdom.
Prateek, I take it you haven’t had much exposure to Christianity? I was raised Anglican, and Romans 13 is not an admonition to follow political leaders. There are many state establishment churches, particularly in the US, which have been co-opted by DHS (as exposed by Alex Jones btw) that preach this nonsense, but render unto Caesar clearly was Jesus explaining that state power had limits which were petty in comparison to the limitless power of God.
Interesting how Kautilya is veneered today, as a great statesman, or something of the sort, by many indian historians. Here’s what Max Weber had to say about him:
Truly radical ‘Machiavellianism’, in the popular sense of that word, is classically expressed in Indian literature in the Arthasastra of Kautilya (written long before the birth of Christ, ostensibly in the time of Chandragupta): compared to it, Machiavelli’s The Prince is harmless.
This goes to my point that people conflate religion with the work of men. Do we disavow economics because there are Keynesians who preach poor economic reasoning? No. But if priests and Popes mislead people, if politicians use religious justifications for wars or other statist ends, then atheists use that as an excuse to disavow religion.
It is possibly a non sequitur, and it is definitely intellectually lazy and dishonest to conflate the two in such a manner.
To put it another way, rationales like that are akin to “guns kill people, therefore all guns are bad”.
Are you trying to make a joke, or are you actually referring to Asians as heathens?
It’s generally accepted that most non-Abrahamic religions are heathen (or pagan - as such is Buddhism and Hinduism). They turned this into a negative. It’s more commonly referred to the Norse religions that are heathen to seperate themselves from pagan for which most new age and neo-pagan religions come to mind. I embrace the word heathen.
Has it not occured to anyone that my avatar is a rune-binding of the ancient Norse alphabet? (Also, a Death in June album cover.)
liberty student wrote the following post at Sun, Jul 4 2010 6:20 PM:
Or are you just demonstrating the strength of your faith in modern medical science?
You are demonstrating a lack of apprehension of medical science and science in general, that’s why you call everyone, who trusts empirical data as a person “acting on faith”. You try to broaden the term “faith”. I see it as poppycock.
Right, and without perfect knowledge, you have to act on faith.
see above.
But you don’t know it doesn’t exist. You can’t. It is not possible to disprove the existence of God. That would be a negative proof. You can choose not to believe in God (because you think the story is unsound, it doesn’t appeal to you, or any other aesthetic), and that is an act of faith.
see above. Again, you tend to equivocate word faith to mean anything.
What else can it be? You cannot disprove the existence of God, correct? So you can’t make a logical argument against God. All you can do is reflect the biases you hold based on your limited understanding and the evidence you consider pertinent. But that still doesn’t constitute proof. At one point, you take a leap of faith. You must. We all do, each and every day. Thousands of times per day.
I don’t need to prove or disproof anything. What people like me usually want is evidence of your blind assertions. What I am proposing is not radical either, it’s just basic rational skepticism.
LS, I’m aware. I guess it’s a matter of definitions. I assumed here (on the west) we’d be using a western definition of “religion”. I’ve found that the more acceptable a “religion” (such as the ones you mention) is, the more it can be described as a philosophy, and less as a “religion”, in western sense. The collectivist and dogmatic aspects are inextricable from the western definition, afaik.
I initially objected to this statement…until I realized that it is irrefutable. I would add the following caveat though: acting on faith, while unavoidable due to imperfect knowledge, is hardly a virtue to be extolled. Rather, it stems from an imperfection in knowledge that should be minimized to the greatest extent possible.
Time is scarce, therefore humans cannot acquire omniscience. Ignorance, it follows, is sadly unavoidable. However, it does not follow from this fact that ignorance should be embraced! To the contrary: we should fight ignorance tooth and claw with what limited resources are available to us if knowledge and understanding are our ends.
I am happy a couple people understood what I was talking about.
I agree, although I don’t like to use the word virtue because what I consider virtuous is a personal preference.
Due to the limitations of time and physical reality, it is impossible for us to be at all places, at all times, experiencing all things, in order to have the sort of perfect knowledge that any planner (which is a mortal form God) would need to solve the calculation problem.
Ignorance is necessary in order to have arbitrage, which allows the market to continually seek higher levels of efficiency and organization. The whole point of individualism and communication is that we resolve issues of ignorance by sharing every time someone achieves more knowledge. That one person having more knowledge is rewarded for pursuing more knowledge (solving ignorance) by some compensation from the consumers of knowledge (those more ignorant than him) in the market. That is his profit for seeking knowledge, outside of his own desire to perfect his own understanding which can have obvious psychological and lifestyle benefits.
Hello? Not everything can be proven empirically. That is a fundamental insight of the Austrian school.
Please refer to the conversation between Aquila and I.
What does faith mean to you?
Surely you need to prove God does not exist, if you claim to be an empiricist, otherwise what other foundation do you use for that opinion? Also, what did I assert blindly? I will evidence everything I have claimed or retract it.
You’re skeptical of religion, but not of science. That’s just another form of faith in my opinion. You don’t have perfect scientific knowledge, and I am not aware of empirical evidence which disproves the existence of God. If such evidence exists, please share it with us. Help us alleviate our ignorance.
Why should I? Why do you keep trying to change the subject? Not that it matters, but I am a philosophical agnostic. The concept of god doesn’t make sense - so it’s pointeless to talk about it. HOWEVER, that has nothing to do with the UNPROVEN claims of different organized religions - agnosticism is yet another way to expose the fraud behind organized religion.
So back to the real topic of discussion : theocrats are liars.
But maybe they aren’t? In that case, do you mind proving for instance that what jews say about their religion is true? Furthermore, do you understand that if, for instance, jews are right then catholics, and the rest of the world is wrong ?
Do you know that persons who say that their religion is the ‘true one’ are AWARE of the fact that other persons make similar claims, and that those claims are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE?
Because if you can’t prove God does not exist, then what is your foundation for being an atheist? It certainly can’t be proof.
See, that is closer to the truth. You choose not to believe in God because it is nonsensical to you.
But aren’t you also choosing not to prove your claim that God doesn’t exist? Does that make you a fraud?
They may well be, but that doesn’t prove or disprove God.
They believe it is true. That is the standard for fraud. Fraud is willful misrepresentation, not unknowing misrepresentation. If that was the case, then every case of someone being wrong about something would be fraudulent. Students who answer questions wrong on exams would be guilty of fraud. People who have their scientific work improved by others, frauds.
As far as proving Judaism, you have opted out of proving your case which I knew you would because it is not provable so it is somewhat silly you would demand proofs from me for positions I don’t hold. I don’t know what Jews say at all, let alone whether any of it is true.
Judaism can only falsify catholicism, or Islam, or Buddhism if it can be proven. I have already demonstrated that short of God proving his existence empirically, that is impossible. It is possible for multiple theories to all be in play until one is proven to be correct. If you don’t agree with any of the religions, you are welcome to prove that God doesn’t exist and make them all wrong.
Sure. I think the Detroit Red Wings are the best franchise in Hockey, Montreal Canadiens fans will differ. It’s nothing to start an intellectual jihad over.
