Is Voltaire Unstoppable here?

[SithDoughnut]

That's the inadvertent beauty of Voltaire's writing here. His definition doesn't allow you to classify Hitler as "a Christian", for it is obvious Hitler did not believe in a supreme being concerned with justice.

That's nice, if irrelevant. Voltaire's argument remains a non sequitur, and possible satire (the Philosophical Dictionary contains a number of examples). Belief in a God does not stop people from murdering.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Even now that you know the source, you maintain your denial.

What is it about knowing the source that means that I must take Voltaire completely at face value? I know his love of wit and satire. I also know that he would want to at least appear to be anti-atheist in order to keep his head from being chopped off for his "liberal" exercise of political speech.

Now, if you really think that Voltaire should be taken with a completely straight face, what he writes is horrible apologetics. He doesn't even try to argue that all people who believe in a vengeful God that has a rung of Hell prepared for murderers will never commit regicide. He also doesn't consider the possibility that at least some atheists may have a moral compass. These are necessary steps in arriving at his conclusions.

I know that, as your august king, I'd feel safer with secular humanists at my back than fanatical hell-fearing theists.

Is this selective? Is the whole piece satire, or just the parts you don't like?

Oh, I like his satire.

It isn't the parts I "don't like" that make me think satire, but the parts where he doesn't even attempt to make a solid argument. If it's not satire, it's just wit that probably goes right over the heads of people who are likely to chop his head off.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[CTD]

It appears that by CTD's definition, "unstoppable" equates to whoever can have whatever word last.

How sad.

My goal in a thread is to have the last on-topic, meaningful word.

You?

 

[CTD]

That's nice, if irrelevant.

You chose that sidetrack - not I.

The sidetrack itself is irrelevant to the topic, so it seems just that it backfired. ...And witnesses learned something new as well, so it's all good.

Voltaire's argument remains a non sequitur, and possible satire (the Philosophical Dictionary contains a number of examples). Belief in a God does not stop people from murdering.

How would you know what belief in God does and does not do?

Even if you want to go superficial, belief in belts, paddles, and hickory switches has been known to factor into the decisions of children.

 

[CTD]

What is it about knowing the source that means that I must take Voltaire completely at face value? I know his love of wit and satire. I also know that he would want to at least appear to be anti-atheist in order to keep his head from being chopped off for his "liberal" exercise of political speech.

Now, if you really think that Voltaire should be taken with a completely straight face, what he writes is horrible apologetics. He doesn't even try to argue that all people who believe in a vengeful God that has a rung of Hell prepared for murderers will never commit regicide.

Someone just got done claiming he did. Was it you? I'm too lazy to scroll.

It isn't the parts I "don't like" that make me think satire, but the parts where he doesn't even attempt to make a solid argument.

Great satire!

 

[CTD]

If it's not satire, it's just wit that probably goes right over the heads of people who are likely to chop his head off.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Sorry - forgot to compliment you on your elitism there. Nice job!

Here's a suggestion: review the thread and you should get tons of chuckles. How many dozens of clever jokes have gone right over my little non-atheist peon head, of course I cannot say. But you'll see them, surely.

 

[Bushido216]

You never actually listed the two premises and the conclusion in any kind of formal way. For the sake of clarity, would you mind posting precisely what the two premises are, what the conclusion is, and the deductions that one uses to proceed from the premises to the conclusion?

Given our collective inability to construct Voltaire's meaning from the text provided, I'm hoping that your explication will allow us to move past ambiguities and strawmen and proceed in a formal, systematic way.

Regards,

 

[SithDoughnut]

How would you know what belief in God does and does not do?

How does Voltaire? There are plenty of theist murderers.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Here's a suggestion: review the thread and you should get tons of chuckles. How many dozens of clever jokes have gone right over my little non-atheist peon head, of course I cannot say. But you'll see them, surely.

Here's a suggestion, actually make an argument instead of insults. I've been completely honest with you about Voltaire and my reasons for not taking his argument seriously. I've explained my reasons why his "argument" falls flat for me, and why I don't think that he was being completely serious in presenting an argument.

I'm also completely serious that I don't think that Voltaire was seriously criticizing atheists, but was doing this only half-heartedly, with his usual French wit, in order to deflect charges that he might have been an atheist himself, and to draw heat away from his Deism. And, yes, I think he does manage to trick some people into thinking that he's making a strong argument. If that is "elitist", so be it.

If you have a problem with my interpretation of Voltaire, perhaps you should explain in your own words what you think Voltaire's argument is and why you think it is so strong. Prove me wrong.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[CTD]

How would you know what belief in God does and does not do?

How does Voltaire?

The same way one knows everyone knows lots of things: Common experience.

There are plenty of theist murderers.

Whether he intended to or not, Voltaire has anticipated you.

Surely a theist might hold his beliefs lightly and let them slip on occasion. Voltaire calls for more:

It is therefore absolutely necessary for princes and for peoples, that the idea of a Supreme Being, creator, ruler, rewarder, revenger, shall be deeply engraved in people's minds. " - Voltaire

"Deeply engraved"

 

[CTD]

You never actually listed the two premises and the conclusion in any kind of formal way. For the sake of clarity, would you mind posting precisely what the two premises are, what the conclusion is, and the deductions that one uses to proceed from the premises to the conclusion?

Given our collective inability to construct Voltaire's meaning from the text provided, I'm hoping that your explication will allow us to move past ambiguities and strawmen and proceed in a formal, systematic way.

Regards,

I decline.

It is my opinion that the premises and the conclusion, being already in sequence and straightforward, organized into a single paragraph, are more than clear enough already. Formal philosophy recognizes the form Voltaire presented as valid.

I have no reason to think your suggestion has merit. Observationally, those not understanding have a motive not to understand. Resisting temptation requires a particular form of strength, and the source of such strength is no secret.

You're welcome to waste your own time on the project, of course. Rearrange, restate, translate to symbols all you please.

 

[CTD]

If it's not satire, it's just wit that probably goes right over the heads of people who are likely to chop his head off.

Sorry - forgot to compliment you on your elitism there. Nice job!

Here's a suggestion: review the thread and you should get tons of chuckles. How many dozens of clever jokes have gone right over my little non-atheist peon head, of course I cannot say. But you'll see them, surely.

Here's a suggestion, actually make an argument instead of insults.

Oh? That wasn't elitism? Forgive me if I did not recognize it as satire.

I've been completely honest with you about Voltaire and my reasons for not taking his argument seriously. I've explained my reasons why his "argument" falls flat for me, and why I don't think that he was being completely serious in presenting an argument.

More satire?

See how this game works? Makes communication pretty much a waste of time.

Anyone who took the link will recognize that it's not a work of satire. Yes, it has humourous elements; no, that does not mean it is disingenuous.

And again, so what? The argument is the topic, not the false prophet himself. If Voltaire wanted to craft a defective argument, he certainly knew how. He produced example after example, some of which are still being repeated. If this particular argument is an example, it should not be difficult to tackle it.

I'm also completely serious that I don't think that Voltaire was seriously criticizing atheists, but was doing this only half-heartedly, with his usual French wit, in order to deflect charges that he might have been an atheist himself, and to draw heat away from his Deism. And, yes, I think he does manage to trick some people into thinking that he's making a strong argument. If that is "elitist", so be it.

Fantasy and history are not the same thing. What concern is it of mine the extent to which you're willing to imagine things in order to puff up your arrogance?

If you have a problem with my interpretation of Voltaire, perhaps you should explain in your own words what you think Voltaire's argument is and why you think it is so strong. Prove me wrong.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Prove you wrong? You need to start your own thread, and the burden of proving your fantasy shall be your own. "Instead, he really meant x" is not the default starting interpretation of any text - not even that of a known liar.

I've already said a thing or two, as the readership is aware. I think one of the best ways to prove an argument strong is to present it for criticism, particularly in the case where some present are hostile to the conclusion.

Judging by that standard, Voltaire's lookin' strong as ever.

 

[SithDoughnut]

The same way one knows everyone knows lots of things: Common experience.

Which is how I know that belief is God does not stop murder.

Surely a theist might hold his beliefs lightly and let them slip on occasion. Voltaire calls for more:

"Deeply engraved"

And he presents no evidence or solid reasoning as to why this should be considered true. I'm sure Muslim terrorists have very deeply engraved beliefs; you'd have to in order to kill yourself. Voltaire's "argument" is an unsubstantiated claim that flies in the face of reality. You can proclaim he is "unstoppable" if you want, but that just makes you as wrong as him.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm sure Muslim terrorists have very deeply engraved beliefs; you'd have to in order to kill yourself.

Right, besides, this is special pleading. It's saying that we need theists with "deeply engraved" religious beliefs, but we can just as easily ask for atheists with "deeply engraved" views on the futility of destructive values and a love of human life. There's no reason to think that only belief in a vengeful God that punishes murderers is required to encourage people to see the folly in murder.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[CTD]

Which is how I know that belief is God does not stop murder.

Watch, folks, watch for the switch

And he presents no evidence or solid reasoning as to why this should be considered true. I'm sure Muslim terrorists have very deeply engraved beliefs; you'd have to in order to kill yourself. Voltaire's "argument" is an unsubstantiated claim that flies in the face of reality. You can proclaim he is "unstoppable" if you want, but that just makes you as wrong as him.

See that? "Stop murder"

Originally the issue was whether or not belief in the supreme being may have any potential to prevent murder.

Now the issue has changed to whether or not it prevents all murders.

At least that's the way one must interpret the original complaint if it is to have any bearing on Voltaire's argument. Maybe it'll be claimed all murders were being addressed from the get-go, in which case there are a few posts which have no business even being in this thread.

For those who haven't already closed the case, and may be just breezing through, I suggest a full review of the passage. See whether or not Muslim terrorists in any way alter the validity of the argument.

 

[CTD]

There's no reason to think that only belief in a vengeful God that punishes murderers is required to encourage people to see the folly in murder.

Still workin' the straw, I see.

The supreme being described by Voltaire has other attributes. As creator, Voltaire's god would be the supreme authority. 'Ruler' is mentioned, reinforcing the authority aspect. He also mentions the term 'rewarder'. Why might one not anticipate reward for good behaviour under such a belief? There are all sorts of non-punitive scenarios available for contemplation.

Don't let your obsession with badmouthing God get in the way of your reasoning so much. It's self-defeating. It must be embarrassing for your fellows; surely if even I am catching these mistakes, they must be catching twice as many with their disbelief-enhanced faculties.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Now the issue has changed to whether or not it prevents all murders.

Not at all. It's the same subject, just phrased differently. I didn't want to write it out in full again, and I thought that you'd be capable of working out the context of my arguments. I'll state out the subject in full, so you know what I am referring to in future:

The subject is the effect that (a)theism has on the desire to kill people and subsequent murders. My argument is that it has little to no effect at all, and theism certainly does not stop people from murdering, or wanting to.

For those who haven't already closed the case, and may be just breezing through, I suggest a full review of the passage. See whether or not Muslim terrorists in any way alter the validity of the argument.

Indeed we should:

It is therefore absolutely necessary for princes and for peoples, that the idea of a Supreme Being, creator, ruler, rewarder, revenger, shall be deeply engraved in people's minds.

This is Voltaire's actual argument; the only real argument he attempts to put forward in the excerpt you quoted. However, Allah of the Qur'an fits this description perfectly, yet some Muslims have murdered other people, even though Allah is deeply engraved in their minds. If you want a Christian example, we can look at the Crusades, which is the same thing, but with the Christian God being deeply engraved.

Voltaire's argument is that theism will stop the desire to murder. Reality shows us otherwise.

 

[CTD]

Format bait!

Voltaire's argument is that theism will stop the desire to murder.

Is that what he said?

Reality shows us otherwise.

Whew - had me going there

 

[CTD]

Not at all. It's the same subject, just phrased differently. I didn't want to write it out in full again, and I thought that you'd be capable of working out the context of my arguments. I'll state out the subject in full, so you know what I am referring to in future:

The subject is the effect that (a)theism has on the desire to kill people and subsequent murders. My argument is that it has little to no effect at all, and theism certainly does not stop people from murdering, or wanting to.

Atheism is not a deterrent.

Voltaire's alternative is.

Now he might still be murdered, but at least it isn't certain.

I can say for certain every atheist would rather be in a situation with even a genuine Voltaire-style Deist in a position and with an interest in doing them in than have a phony priest who's convinced himself God doesn't exist in that position. One has multiple reservations, and the other has only practical obstacles to consider.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Is that what he said?

What do you think his argument is?