Roll over, Spinoza.

[Ootpic]

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Religion is the first.

 

[cantdog]

Although there had been religious wars and stuff, I was talking about the unreason of the authority structures of the time. The Spinoza article referred to his rationalist basis for tolerance, though, and his own persecutions.

 

[shereads]

Spinoza was able to get his ideas published (anonymously, though) only because he was part of an extraordinarily tolerant Flemish society. That tolerance in turn had a number of causes, rooted in the Reformation.


Spinoza was at the vanguard of rationalist thought, and was generally villified at the time. He was an outcast from Jewish orthodoxy, but lived 200 years before the time when people could publish such radical views openly. He received death threats and was stabbed in the face.

Let's never forget the bravery and sacrifice it took to establish atheism, which some of us might take for granted.

I've always admired the Flems. I hope to visit Flemland someday.

 

[shereads]

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Religion is the first.

A duck, a rabbi and Spinoza walk into a bar...

 

[shereads]

Each of us has been endowed with reason, and it is our right, as well as our responsibility, to exercise it. Ceding this faculty to others, to the authorities of either the church or the state, is neither a rational nor an ethical option.

Which is why, for Spinoza, democracy was the most superior form of government. The state, in helping each person to preserve his life and well-being, can legitimately demand sacrifices from us, but it can never relieve us of our responsibility to strive to justify our beliefs in the light of evidence.

It is for this reason that he argued that a government that impedes the development of the sciences subverts the grounds for state legitimacy, which is to provide us physical safety so that we can realize our full potential. And this, too, is why he argued against the influence of clerics in government. Statecraft infused with religion is intrinsically unstable, since it must insist on its version of the truth against all others.

Clearly, Spinoza didn't anticipate the --

Oops.

I thought Spinoza invented the electric piano. Sorry about the confusion.

 

[shereads]

Spinoza was one of the first people to realize that there's a difference between faith and zealotry, that faith need not exclude the possibility of doubt, that doubt need not be considered a sin, and that knowing you are right does not necessarily make the guy who disagrees with you an irrational idiot.

What he actually wrote is that the guy who disagrees with me isn't necessarily an irrational idiot, but might be a scheming bastard.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Yay, Spinoza!

Religion as defined in the West (including Islam) is the acceptance of allegations without evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason. It is the claim to some nonsensory, non-rational, non-definable, unidentified means of knowledge.

It takes an extraordinary hubris and, I'll say it - ignorance - to suggest that such allegations are the only basis of an ethical system. Reason and the nature of human beings provide a wonderful basis for an ethical system that applies to all people in all places and times.

(Hint - the precepts of such a system do not include "sex is bad - especially butt sex.")

(Another hint - the golden rule, eastern of western version, is a component of such an ethical system, but there is a basis in reason for it - not because "God said," or because "I feel it." One may indeed "feel it," but people "feel" all kinds of things, so that is not sufficient in itself.)

 

[cantdog]

A duck, a rabbi and Spinoza walk into a bar...

The duck is humming the Marseillaise.

Statecraft infused with religion is intrinsically unstable, since it must insist on its version of the truth against all others.

Dogma can certainly be inflexible. But with kings, the problem was often that their ideas were a little too flexible. Changeable, sometimes, at the drop of a hat, and each new dictum was absolute, not to be contravened-- insisting, in fact, on its own version of the truth against all others-- at least, until after dinnertime, when it could change again. It could be even worse if nothing seemed to make the king change his mind, and he had hold of the wrong end of an idea. You don't need religion to have an intolerably unstable governmental system.

Spinoza could see that some sort of standard criterion, independent of kings and bishops, by which to judge the best course, would help things run a bit smoother. Giving it some thought, for instance. Or at least, trying for a bit of consensus.

But religions have always resented any suggestion that intelligent reflection should trump dogmatic certainties, particularly if the result diminished their power. Kings the same.

 

[shereads]

The duck is humming the Marseillaise.



You don't need religion to have an intolerably unstable governmental system.

Maybe not, but it sure helps. Notice how often kings turned to the Pope to put God's own stamp of approval on their actions. Threats of imprisonment and torture work pretty well to control a restless populace, but carrying out the threat can be expensive.

Eternal damnation by an invisible higher power is more efficient. It doesn't cost anything, and it's not even your fault. You're not cruel; you're just the messenger.

I just finished "Over the Edge of the World," about Magellen's expedition. I might be the last person here to know that the Pope, at Spain's request, divided ownership of the oceans between Portugal and Spain, to give Spain a better shot at the Spice Islands. As if God didn't have enough to worry about, with heretics running rampant and gay marriage and flag burning on the horizon, He had to determine the ownership of real estate.

When a king's word isn't enough, He's the go-to man.