slavery

[elman]

elman. i may well not be the the master of everything - physical death, the external world and whatnot - but I can be the master of my own decision-making. Looking for a 'meaning for life' is looking for a way to externalise that freedom that you have.

Good for Zarathrustra

i didn't mean right and wrong has nothing to do with christianity, but that the truth or falsehood of god's existence has little to do with whether they believe. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

OK but I don't understand looking for a meaning in life is looking for a way to externalise the freedom we have. To me looking for meaning in life is simply that finding a reason to be alive.

 

[exploring]

Now the thing that I object to is your insistence that I only believe in God in some psychological desire to be controlled. I could just easily repeat ad naseum that you don't belive in God because of psychological need for rebellion, or denial.

Yes thats pretty much what I'm saying: the psychological factor is more important than the truth factor. I accept that my non-belief comes more from a desire to make my own decisions than from any evidence that there is no god.

whether mastery or slavery is better is pretty much arbitrary. I don't mean to make slavery sound bad, just to identify it.

 

[exploring]

Asking oneself the question, "What is God? What is life? What is a good way to lead your life," and other philisophical questions to me, are much more profound.
Charlie

I know this is flogging a dead horse, but searching for definitions of life, like saying "what is a good way to lead your life?" is looking outside for something to make your decisions, even when you are asking yourself! When you are in charge, you don't need outside concepts like "goodness" to define your life. You can exist without being defined.

 

[exploring]

Ok first a distinction needs to be made between outside slavery - paralysis, death, etc - and inside slavery, an attempt to deny individual freedom: excuses like "I didn't do it, my depression did it" or "I was doing god's work" or "I did it because of my principles". None of these excuses work for me, because ultimately we are all doomed to be free to make our own decisions. Some people prefer to deny their freedom and make excuses such as those above. This is what I call being a slave. It may as well, as you say, be to science as to god, but in the case of religion I can see no function for it other than to provide an excuse.

As for the first type of slavery I mentioned, the outside slavery of broken arms, hunger and so on, our strategy for avoiding that kind of slavery is a completely different question. In this area we would be fools not to take account of gravity, our friends' opinions and all the other factors people have mentioned.

But what about God? Not believing in God doesn't put you at a disadvantage in the outside stakes: noone has ever died of non-belief. So believing in god does nothing but reduce our individual freedom, so it is of no use except to those who want to deny their freedom by defining it.

 

[quatona]

so the objective question "does god exist?" becomes irrelevant. Subjectively, some will choose to believe and others won't, and the truth of the matter has little to do with it.

Although this doesn´t seem to follow from your previous elaborations, I agree with that notion.

Now the question: does anyone deny that christianity, or any religion for that matter, is a slave doctrine, in the way I have outlined?

I have thought long and hard about the question what desires belief or lack of belief in gods may be caused by, and I have found a great variety of aspects, most of which seem to be more relevant and interesting than your slave/master idea.
I don´t think it´s possible to make such a statement about god concepts in toto, not even about the christian god concept. There are multiple christian god concepts based on different bible interpretations, only some of which picture god´s foremost desire/interest to be human obedience.
I must say, though, that accepting the idea of a personal god who is good in his own right (independent on human standards) requires an acceptance of might/authority, that I personally could not summon up.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

..But what about God? Not believing in God doesn't put you at a disadvantage in the outside stakes: noone has ever died of non-belief. So believing in god does nothing but reduce our individual freedom, so it is of no use except to those who want to deny their freedom by defining it.

Whoa! Where did you get that idea?? Who said that no one ever died from not believing in a God??

That is a rather presumptuous thing to say even for an atheist. You know that your believes affect everything that you do. No matter what change you come to make in your believes, you will affect your future, God or not.

To think that you can possibly know what has caused every person's death from the beginning of time is a bit much. To say that believing in this thing or that thing would have made anyone live longer is pretty speculative just in itself.

You cannot know the affects of something until you see or at least very firmly verify what happens when that something is no longer there.

Even if God was a total fictional story, I suspect that people believing in it 3000 years ago would have been better for them than not, because the alternative is not that they would know the actual truth, but that they would believe in a different deception instead. But which deception would have existed if they hadn't accepted that one? You could not even begin to speculate with any hope of accuracy.

 

[exploring]

Whoa! Where did you get that idea?? Who said that no one ever died from not believing in a God??

That is a rather presumptuous thing to say even for an atheist. You know that your believes affect everything that you do. No matter what change you come to make in your believes, you will affect your future, God or not.

To think that you can possibly know what has caused every person's death from the beginning of time is a bit much. To say that believing in this thing or that thing would have made anyone live longer is pretty speculative just in itself.

You cannot know the affects of something until you see or at least very firmly verify what happens when that something is no longer there.

Even if God was a total fictional story, I suspect that people believing in it 3000 years ago would have been better for them than not, because the alternative is not that they would know the actual truth, but that they would believe in a different deception instead. But which deception would have existed if they hadn't accepted that one? You could not even begin to speculate with any hope of accuracy.

Alright then how about this: in our enlightened society, believers and non believers tend to have equivalent life expectancy, showing that belief is no longer a major factor in survival.

I agree that in the past this may have been different, what with heretic burning and all that

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Alright then how about this: in our enlightened society, believers and non believers tend to have equivalent life expectancy, showing that belief is no longer a major factor in survival.

I agree that in the past this may have been different, what with heretic burning and all that

Well, even in this, you are leaving out a very significant factor.

The basic methodology of Christianity is to arrange a foundation substrate of expectation of love and assistance from everyone around.

Setting this kind of thing up takes time, at least several generations. But it also takes time to change it into anything else.

So what you are experiencing now concerning life expectancy was provided for by many generations before you. Everyone could suddenly become totally atheist and it would still take time for things to change into what becomes of an entirely atheist world.

The problem of course is that once it has changed into certain kinds of things, those things prohibit from changing to anything else.

As Science and technology increase, the ability for a modern day Pharaoh to lock-in his methods for enslaving become substantially more than they have ever been in the past.

So freely changing from one thing to another is not a great idea unless you are very certain what you are going to change the world into.

 

[exploring]

Well, even in this, you are leaving out a very significant factor.

The basic methodology of Christianity is to arrange a foundation substrate of expectation of love and assistance from everyone around.

Setting this kind of thing up takes time, at least several generations. But it also takes time to change it into anything else.

So what you are experiencing now concerning life expectancy was provided for by many generations before you. Everyone could suddenly become totally atheist and it would still take time for things to change into what becomes of an entirely atheist world.

The problem of course is that once it has changed into certain kinds of things, those things prohibit from changing to anything else.

As Science and technology increase, the ability for a modern day Pharaoh to lock-in his methods for enslaving become substantially more than they have ever been in the past.

So freely changing from one thing to another is not a great idea unless you are very certain what you are going to change the world into.

I don't quite follow the first bit: do you mean that atheists and christians both benefit from the "foundation substrate"? So atheists have artificially high life expectancy?

I don't see the need to oppose religion with "science and technology"

Again we need to make a distinction between outside and inside. A pharoh can enslave you externally, but internally, you cannot be a slave to anyone but yourself. That is why I said christianity was a "slave doctrine" (a doctrine for slaves) rather than an "enslaving doctrine".

 

[Charlie V]

I accept that my non-belief comes more from a desire to make my own decisions than from any evidence that there is no god.

You can make your own decisions and have whatever belief you want. In fact, having whatever belief you want is making your own decision.

You can also have any belief, including non-belief, and get others to make your decisions.

The irony is, if you get others to make your decisions, that's your choice.

I don't think religious philosophy has much to do with it. There are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, and virtually every sort of person, who make all sorts of decisions on their own -- and those from all those groups, who do not.

There are also those who disagree with your philosophy who are Atheists and Agnostics. For example, I know of one argument (in opposition to the concept of "free will" accepted by some Christians) that says, "I'm Atheist/Agnostic because I don't believe mankind has free will, and that negates the concept of punishment/reward heaven/hell because we are all driven to our choices by environmental circumstances."

Can you really make your own decisions? Or are you driven to those decisions by the series of circumstances in your life, environmental and genetic?

Even the mundane things -- chocolate or vanilla? Can you really choose? Are you really choosing, or are you just programmed to choose the chocolate, or to choose the vanilla, by the genetic make-up of your taste buds and by your past experiences with chocolate and vanilla?

Charlie

 

[Charlie V]

you cannot be a slave to anyone but yourself. That is why I said christianity was a "slave doctrine" (a doctrine for slaves) rather than an "enslaving doctrine".

If you cannot be a slave to anyone but yourself -- how can that be calles slavery?

I can read any philosophy or idea, be it a Christian sermon or a writing of Socrates, or even a book by Al Frankin or a book by Anne Coulter.

I say to myself, "That appeals to me," or I say, "That does not." Am I now enslaved, because something appeals to me?

Charlie

 

[exploring]

You are enslaving yourself when you use outside things as an excuse for your actions, because you are denying yourself the freedom to create your own existence (theres a fuller explanation in post 24). Awkward as this may sound, it is surely much harder to imagine someone else enslaving you internally.

 

[exploring]

You can make your own decisions and have whatever belief you want. In fact, having whatever belief you want is making your own decision.

You can also have any belief, including non-belief, and get others to make your decisions.

The irony is, if you get others to make your decisions, that's your choice.

I agree I don't think freedom is optional, but if you accept that we are free you must accept that we are free to deny our freedom. Probably a poor choice of words by me when I said "make my own decisions" I meant "choose to be free" (as opposed to choosing to be a slave)

I don't think religious philosophy has much to do with it. There are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, and virtually every sort of person, who make all sorts of decisions on their own -- and those from all those groups, who do not.

I agree that non-believers can also enslave themselves, but i find it hard to see how you can be free when you are choosing to believe that a higher power is judging your every action [/quote]

There are also those who disagree with your philosophy who are Atheists and Agnostics. For example, I know of one argument (in opposition to the concept of "free will" accepted by some Christians) that says, "I'm Atheist/Agnostic because I don't believe mankind has free will, and that negates the concept of punishment/reward heaven/hell because we are all driven to our choices by environmental circumstances."

Can you really make your own decisions? Or are you driven to those decisions by the series of circumstances in your life, environmental and genetic?

Even the mundane things -- chocolate or vanilla? Can you really choose? Are you really choosing, or are you just programmed to choose the chocolate, or to choose the vanilla, by the genetic make-up of your taste buds and by your past experiences with chocolate and vanilla?

Charlie

That is the question underneath all this: does existence precede essence? Do we define things or do things define us? Ironically enough, there isn't really any hard evidence either way, so we appear to be/ we are able to choose which one to accept. To choose that essence precedes existence seems to me to be choosing not to exist, which i don't fancy. But then I can't really argue that your choice is wrong.

 

[Charlie V]

i find it hard to see how you can be free when you are choosing to believe that a higher power is judging your every action

I am not choosing to believe that a higher power is judging my every action.

What ever gave you that idea?

Apparently your argument applies only to those theists who believe that a higher power is judging their every action. This makes many theists -- and, indeed, many Christians, especially the more liberal ones -- exempt from your slavery concept.

Charlie

 

[Charlie V]

if you accept that we are free you must accept that we are free to deny our freedom.

Really, in many ways, I don't accept that we are free. Any of us.

We live in a world full of constraints.

A favorite quote of mine, from a song by Neal Peart (written several decades after he wrote "Free Will,") describes what I think is the real nature of our free will:

"Like a rat in a maze who says, watch me choose my own direction.."

Charlie

 

[billwald]

First, slavery is a mental state. Anyone who can think, "Screw you," is free.

Second, we are all slaves by percentages. If the Govt confiscates half my life's energy then I am a 50% slave.

 

[quatona]

First, slavery is a mental state. Anyone who can think, "Screw you," is free.

Second, we are all slaves by percentages. If the Govt confiscates half my life's energy then I am a 50% slave.

These two statements seem to contradict each other, or at least refer to two different concepts of "slavery".

 

[exploring]

I am not choosing to believe that a higher power is judging my every action.

What ever gave you that idea?

Apparently your argument applies only to those theists who believe that a higher power is judging their every action. This makes many theists -- and, indeed, many Christians, especially the more liberal ones -- exempt from your slavery concept.

Charlie

Fair enough i guess it does, but i'd like a further explanation of the role that these people asign to god if they don't think he judges them. Why believe in god at all?

 

[quatona]

Fair enough i guess it does, but i'd like a further explanation of the role that these people asign to god if they don't think he judges them. Why believe in god at all?

Counterquestion: Why do you feel that a judging god is a particularly good (or even the only valid one, to tell from the way you put it) reason to believe in the existence of a god?

 

[exploring]

Really, in many ways, I don't accept that we are free. Any of us.

We live in a world full of constraints.

A favorite quote of mine, from a song by Neal Peart (written several decades after he wrote "Free Will,") describes what I think is the real nature of our free will:

"Like a rat in a maze who says, watch me choose my own direction.."

Charlie

Even if we aren't free, all of us act as if we were: not accepting something is an act of freedom. To me, the fact that I can choose to believe that I am free shows that I am simply by being able to make that choice. We can choose to view the world objectively or subjectively. Objectively, looking at the rat from the outside, it doesn't seem like there is freedom, but from the rat's subjective point of view, there is.

Now in the first post I said that I was adopting a subjective point of view with regards to believing in god, as opposed to an objective "does god exist" point of view. So for now can we assume that we are fundamentally free?