FredAnyman

I think that it would be beneficial to first define “religion” and be clear on the meaning before an answer to the question of “Is there any reason, any religion should still exist?” can be found. As a starting point, the definition of religion, per Merriam-Webster, can be: as an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods. Based on this definition with the belief in gods, it may be simple to answer the question by making an argument that gods do not exist and therefore the belief in gods is not rational and since religion stems from a belief in gods, religion is not rational and therefore there is no reason any religion should still exist. However, it has been theorized that religion arose out of a human need to understand the world in which we live. Religion provided, and provides, explanations for those things that humans did and do not understand e.g. thunder is the noise that Thor’s chariot makes as he rides into battle and a person goes to paradise after death if they accept Jesus. If you accept the religious beliefs then you have your understanding thus fulfilling your need and the world became a less confusing and therefore better (maybe) place to live. Based on this, the definition of religion may need to be expanded to something like: religion is the acceptance of something as existing, as true, and/or as correct without the ability to prove and/or explain why or how the something exists, is true, and/or is correct. Or in other words: religion is a faith in something. If this is the case, then it becomes much more difficult to answer the question of whether there is any reason any religion should still exist. If religion provides people with an understanding of the world that they desire/need, then it could be argued that that is a reason that religion should exist. Now some might argue at this point that there is no reason that any religion should exist because science and philosophy can provide an understanding of the world without faith. However, I do not think that this is the case and I think that religion, based on the expanded definition, does and should exist. Based on the expanded definition of religion, faith in anything is a religion and anyone can follow that religion. There does not have to be a deity, or rituals, or places of worship, in order to have faith. All that is required is that one cannot prove or explain an understating of that which they consider to be true and/or correct. The reason I think there is a need for religion is because the bulk of human knowledge, either an individual’s knowledge or the collective knowledge of the human race, is built on steps, that is one piece of knowledge is built upon another or: A leads to B which leads to C which leads to D. I recognize that the accumulation of knowledge is not always linear, e.g. the knowledge of how to build a fire came before the knowledge of the chemical process of fire, but, in general, it appears that knowledge is built on steps. So at this point, it appears that religion, based on the expanded definition, is all around us and many, if not all, people practice religion in one form or another. You may understand and be able to explain everything about D and know that D is true and correct based on your experiences or whatever, but if you do not also understand and cannot explain everything about C, B, and A, then what you have is faith that C, B, and A are correct, and therefore you follow a religion. Now there is not necessarily anything wrong with this. It is possible that due to lack of time, or motivation, or intellectual capacity, or some other reason, you are not able to understand or explain everything about C, B, A. This does not necessarily mean that D is not correct or true, rather it just means that you have, and need, faith in C, B, and A. For example, I know from personal experience that if my car is running properly it will get me down the road, this would be D. I do not know and cannot explain the mechanics and physics and everything else about why my car get me down road, that is C, B, and A. So I have faith that C, B, and A are true and correct therefore follow a religion. So back to the question of is there any reason any religion should still exist. If we accept the expanded definition of religion above, then the answer is yes. Religion needs to exist because you, the individual, with all of the limitations of a human, finite time, finite energy, etc., has and needs to have faith in things and therefore you have religion. Of course, another definition of religion could produce an entirely different answer.

softwareNerd Your theory about people deriving satisfaction from discussing an idea to both clarify the idea to themselves and to communicate the idea to another person and then feeling unsatisfied and unmotivated when communication is thought to not be possible is very interesting and may even be correct. Perhaps asking "what do you mean" enough times does cause others to believe that communication is pointless, causes them to lose motivation, and leads to exasperation. So maybe I should change my approach. But another theory, one that could be supported by an interpretation of the various statements made in the posts of this thread, is that there are people who believe, in some cases believe with a religious-like zeal, that they understand an idea but who only have a superficial understanding of the idea, and when someone challenges and questions the idea, asks for explanations of and support for the idea, and does not accept as true everything that is stated, these people become defensive and look for excuses to discredit the questioner and then ultimately ignore the questioner instead of reexamining and rethinking the idea and their understanding of it. Perhaps asking "what do you mean" enough times is revealing those with only superficial understandings and causes them to lose motivation, and become exasperated, not because communication is pointless, but because they cannot answer the questions asked and do not like having their beliefs questioned. Or maybe there is some other answer; I cannot be certain. Regardless, I have found the exchange on this thread, every post in fact, to be very enlightening.

softwareNerd I will not quote you if you find it troublesome. I write my posts that way because I find the quote function on the site to be clumsy and I write my posts in Word before posting them and I find it easier to retype the quotes. When tadmjones wrote, "May the force be with you, I think I see my exit" and I read it, I instantly came up with an idea as to what was meant. However, this is just my interpretation and may not be what tadmjones intended to convey. At this point I could respond to tadmjones with many statements, and maybe even paragraphs, about how wrong tadmjones is for making that statement, or I could imply that tadmjones must have some kind of mental disorder, or suggest that tadmjones doesn't understand English, or something like that all of which I have experienced on this thread. Or I could just ask what tadmjones meant by the statement. You wonder why I don't share my understanding of the statement and then ask if this is correct. It has been my experience that when I state my understanding and ask if it is correct I receive posts that proceed to explain why the writer believes that I am wrong in my thinking, the conversation goes off on tangents, and I never do find out what was meant by the original statement. While this is not always the case, it has happened enough time for me to prefer simply asking what a statement means. For example, when you made your statement about trolling, an idea about what trolling means and all of its implications came to my mind. But this is just my interpretation and may not be what you intend to convey. Now, should I spend some of these sentences with, similar to what I received in earlier posts, an "explanation" that simply states "You are not right", or should I spend some time writing about how you are not forming the concept of trolling correctly, or understanding English, or something else along those lines? Or should I just ask what you meant? As I stated earlier, I am asking questions and I do not accept answers without explanation as truth. I will continue to ask questions, and question the explanations if the explanations raise more questions, until I understand. Is this so wrong and so offensive to people? If you do not want to answer or, as you say, go in pointless circles, then you are not forced to respond to my posts or even to read them. I am trying to learn and understand, so I will continue to ask questions.

andie holland, I do not understand how anything that you wrote in post #101 is relevant to the discussion of the use of force or to the questions I asked you in post #85. If you could explain, that would be helpful. But I will also ask again the question from post #85, because I am truly interested in your answer. Under one of your forms of morality, morals codified in to law that we must obey, change, or agree to suffer the consequences, if the law stated that it was legal to enslave a group of people, or exterminate a group of people, then the use of force to either enslave or exterminate is moral because it is codified into law and that which is codified into law is moral? Is this your position?

tadmjones, From post #100, “May the force be with you, I think I see my exit” I do not understand this post. What does a pop culture reference have to do with the discussion at hand and what is your exit and why do you think you see it?

tadmjones, In post #97 you ask, “Why would you characterize the actions of the police in that situation as an initiation of force ?” I characterized the actions of the police in the example as an initiation of force because the police initiated force against the man who stole from me. In my example, the police force the man who stole from me into prison. I am assuming in this example that the man did not want to go to prison but the police used force to bring him there.

tadmjones, In post #94 you state, “In a societal context, force is either moral or immoral. The initiation of force is immoral, not because it could or may be otherwise, but because of the nature of the act, its identity. Force is not simultaneously both at the same time and then becomes one or the other. The concept of ' the use of force' is amoral, specific actions of specific entities can be either moral or immoral when properly identified.” If the initiation of force is immoral because of the nature of the act, then how could the use of retaliatory force be moral, since the use of retaliatory force involves the initiation of force? For example, if a man breaks into my house and steals from me, that would be considered an initiation of force and would be immoral. If the police capture the man who broke into my house and imprison him, then the police have initiated force against the man and since the initiation of force is immoral because of the nature of the act, the act of capturing and imprisoning the man was immoral.

softwareNerd, Why do you believe there is an "epistemological chasm"? And if there is an "epistemological chasm", do you have any ideas how to bridge it?

You stated in post #84, “It seems the problem you are having is equivocating 'deciding to label' something with identifying what the something is, which I believe is the point SN keeps refering to.” I asked you if you were referring to the ‘use of force’ in post #86 In post #87 you stated, “I was speaking to the difference between 'deciding to label' and 'identifying'. I could identify the color green, but I could not make a normative disctinction between or in reference to it , the color, and its relation to my volition.” In post #91 you stated, “I misinterptretted your question re #88, no my statement so worded would not make sense. The statement about green makes sense, because of the identity of the color green and the identity of volition.” So does this mean that a statement about identity does not apply to the ‘use of force’? How does this relate to your statement that you think I have a problem equivocating 'deciding to label' something with identifying what the something is?

tadmjones, From post #89, “The phenomenon of 'force' in general? or a specific instance of a moral agent 'using force' in regard me ?” It would be, as stated in post #88, the ‘use of force’. But if you feel the need to be more specific, please do so as I would be interested in reading that as well.

tadmjones, From post #87, “I could identify the color green, but I could not make a normative disctinction between or in reference to it , the color, and its relation to my volition.” So, in the case of the use of force, your statement would be written as, “I could identify the ‘use of force’, but I could not make a normative distinction between, or in reference, to it, the ‘use of force’, and its relation to my volition.”?

tadmjones, From post #84, “It seems the problem you are having is equivocating 'deciding to label' something with identifying what the something is, which I believe is the point SN keeps refering to.” By “what the something is” are you referring to the use of force? Or do you mean that the ‘initiation of force’ is “something” and ‘the use of retaliatory force’ is a separate “something” even though they are both a use of force? Are you implying that once you identify what something is, you can then make a determination as to whether that something is moral or immoral?

andie holland, From post #83, “To this end, i would say that there are, in reality two distinct forms of morality: * morals codified in to law that we must obey, change, or agree to suffer the consequences. In these cases, it's impossible to discuss morality as if it existed in a vacuum. ** morals that give individuals latitude of behavior, and which no legal reference is necessary” So, to be clear, under one of your forms of morality, morals codified in to law that we must obey, change, or agree to suffer the consequences, if the law stated that it was legal to enslave a group of people, or exterminate a group of people, then the use of force to either enslave or exterminate is moral because it is codified into law and that which is codified into law is moral? But you also wrote, “Next, we all appreciate the distinction between law and morality in so far as thinking people come to realize that certain legal statutes are unfair, therefore immoral.” How can this be? If something is codified into law then it is moral, so how can “thinking people” decide that a codified law (legal statute in your quote) is immoral? The very fact that the law exists demonstrates that it is moral and cannot be immoral.

softwareNerd, From post #81, “I think the primary reason this thread won't go anywhere particular (which does not make it value-less) stems from the inability to breach the "epistemological chasm". Can you be more specific about this "epistemological chasm"?

tadmjones, You wrote in post #78, “I think the discussion has come off the rails because the OP started with the strawman that O'ism considers the use of force as immoral, without the distinction of 'initiation' of force as compared to the use of retalitory force.” No “strawman” was intended when the post was written and it even contains a qualifier, “as it appears to be” to demonstrate that I was not make a definitive statement. If you wish to put the discussion “back on the rails”, then you can offer a clarification to the original post. To anticipate this, I will restate the original post as: “I have a question concerning the difference between the initiation of force and the retaliatory use of force: If it is, as it appears to be, considered by Objectivism to be immoral to initiate force against someone, then why is it (or is it) moral, or at least not immoral, to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone?” (Before going any further, if you are not satisfied with the restatement, please offer your own) Despite the change of wording, the question still stands. To push the conversation further, I will add: The use of force can be either moral or immoral depending on the label it is given (either initiation or retaliatory), but it is still the use of force. How can something (the use of force in this example) be both moral and immoral? Or, is the something (the use of force in this example) neither moral nor immoral, but it becomes moral or immoral only if someone decides to label that way?

andie holland, You wrote in post #77, “What is generally agreed upon as 'moral' has been codified as law. So do you seriously want to change the law to be permitted to hunt down and kill someone who stole stuff out of your house?” This is an interesting statement as it seems to imply morality is “what is generally agreed upon as ‘moral’”. If this is the case, then, to continue the example, if it was generally agreed upon that hunting someone down and killing them because they broke into your house and stole from you was moral, then it would be moral. And use this implication to answer the question from the original post, if it was generally agreed upon that the use force in a retaliatory manner against someone is moral, then the use of force in a retaliatory manner against someone is moral; if it was generally agreed upon that the use of force in a retaliatory manner against someone is immoral, then the use force in a retaliatory manner against someone would be immoral. Is this what you are suggesting?

Nicky, In post #75 you wrote, “I'm gonna stop you right there. To have a conversation about philosophy, you have to be able to have at least a basic ability to form concepts correctly.” What does “correctly” mean? In earlier posts I defined a double standard and provided an example of a double standard. Further, I demonstrated that my example was an example of a double standard based on my definition of a double standard. This should indicate that I have the ability to form concepts. You disagreed with my definition stating that it was terrible. The only explanation as to why my definition was terrible was a simple statement that my definition doesn’t follow the basic principles of concept formation. I told you that I could not accept your determination that my definition is terrible without a further explanation of the principals of concept formation that you espouse. Now, based on your statement above, it seems that in order for me to form concepts “correctly” I have to form concepts in the same way that you form concepts. Your statement implies that if I was able to form concepts “correctly” then I would recognize that my definition of a double standard is terrible and agree with you without question, but since I didn’t agree with you without question it must mean that I do not know how to form concepts “correctly”. Is this what you are suggesting?

Nicky, In post #73 you wrote, “The quality or lackthereof of your definition has nothing to do with my agreement, and everything to do with he [sic] basic principles of concept formation. Your definition is terrible because it doesn't follow them.” With this statement you are doing the same thing that Jon Southall and others do: making a statement without explanation and expecting (I assume) me to accept it as fact. If you think that my definition is terrible because it doesn’t follow the principles of concept formation, you will need to explain exactly why the principals of concept formation that you espouse are correct, and why you think that my definition doesn’t follow the principles of concept formation that you espouse. Without any further explanation, I have no basis to accept as true your statement that my definition is terrible and therefore conclude that my definition is not terrible and that you only disagree with my definition. However, since you never agreed that my definition of a double standard is correct, and you have now provided a definition of your own, if I agree that your definition is the one to use, we can move forward. Of course, it was Jon Southall who originally asked about the definition of a double standard to (again I presume) try and tie it back to the question in the original post. I do not know if that is your intention as well, but for the sake of this very interesting conversation, I will agree with your definition of a double standard of “applying different rules or judgements [sic] to people or situations which are similar in every logically relevant way”.

Jon Southall, In post #68 you wrote, “I have done but you still maintain those examples were double standards. This led me to hypothesise that you don't understand what it means to apply a standard. I'm helping you by getting you to consider what your thinking rests on. It might help you in turn to come to understand the Objectivist position on force, an outcome that would please me.” This is your response to my statement in post #64 that you have not offered any explanation of why I am not applying the definition of a double standard correctly. Looking back over your previous posts, I cannot find where you have provided any explanation. As far as I can tell, your attempt at an explanation comes from post #59 (if there is some other post where you provided your explanation, please reference it). This is your explanation, as far as I can tell: The first paragraph from post #59, “You are not right, the law applying differently to over and under 18s is not an example of a double standard. The law about 18yo is an application of one standard. The idea is that an adult is responsible enough to enter into a legally binding contract themselves, whereas a child is not. It is applying that standard, which means some people will meet the standard and others won't but the criteria ought to be objective.” Your first sentence simply states that I am wrong and then makes a statement that you, presumably, expect the reader to accept as a statement of fact. Your second sentence is again a statement that you, presumably, expect the reader to accept as a statement of fact while no explanation is given as to why this statement is correct. Your third sentence, “The idea is that an adult is responsible enough to enter into a legally binding contract themselves, whereas a child is not” appears to be an expression of an idea but no explanation is given as why this idea is correct or how it applies to the definition, and application of the definition, of a double standard. Nor do you state that the statement is the definition of a standard. Your fourth sentence, “It is applying that standard, which means some people will meet the standard and others won't but the criteria ought to be objective” is confusing. When you say “It is applying that standard…”, to what standard are you referring? The only thing that could be the standard, based on what you wrote, is the idea that an adult is responsible enough to enter into a legally binding contract themselves, whereas a child is not. Is this the standard? Should your statement read, “It is applying the standard that an adult is responsible enough to enter into a legally binding contract themselves, whereas a child is not, which means some people will meet the standard and others won't but the criteria ought to be objective”? The sentence is still confusing. Additionally, even if you did mean some other standard when you wrote, “It is applying that standard…”, you still did not provide any explanation of why your definition is correct. The second paragraph from post #59, “What you are saying would mean society applies double standards when it permits people with a driving licence to drive on the roads but not those without a licence. However that is not a double standard. It is the application of a single standard. Those who can prove they are competent to drive meet the required standard and so are licensed. Those who can't prove it cannot show they meet the required standard and so are not permitted to use the roads. If a standard only applies to those who meet it it is not a standard at all. The standard you have achieved is not necessarily the same as the standard you are held to. Where that is true, it is not a case of double standards - rather it indicates where you measure up against a standard which applies to all individuals.” Your first sentence makes a presumption about what I did, or would, say and is not an explanation. Your second sentence simply states that the first sentence is not a double standard and you, presumably, expect the reader to accept this statement as a statement of fact. Your third sentence explains why your first statement is not a double standard by stating that it is a single standard. No further explanation is given as to why this is correct or what a single standard is and again, you, presumably, expect the reader to accept this statement as a statement of fact. Your fourth and fifth sentences attempt, I assume, to illustrate that you are referring to a single standard. Your sixth sentence, “If a standard only applies to those who meet it it is not a standard at all” is another statement that again, you, presumably, expect the reader to accept as a statement of fact without any explanation. Your seventh sentence, “The standard you have achieved is not necessarily the same as the standard you are held to” is the same type of statement as your sixth sentence; a presumed statement of fact that provides no explanation as to why it is correct. Your final sentence, “Where that is true, it is not a case of double standards - rather it indicates where you measure up against a standard which applies to all individuals” provides yet another statement that you presume the reader will accept as the truth without any explanation as to why it is the truth. The third paragraph from post #59, “The same applies in the moral sphere - would you say society practices double standards when it locks up criminals? Again I would say no - in a society with objective laws if someone breaks those laws they fall short of a standard all individuals are held to. A consequence of failing to achieve a moral standard is usually a reduction of personal liberty, likewise in the driving licence example one has less liberty to drive if they haven't got a licence. If you fail to meet the required standards at work and your colleagues do, if your employer sacks you and keeps them they are not applying double standards.” Your first sentence makes a statement that you, presumably, expect the reader to accept as a statement of fact and then asks a question. Your second sentence provides your own answer to your own question from the first sentence with another statement that you, presumably, expect the reader to accept as a statement of fact. Your third and fourth sentences are once again statements that you, presumably, expect the reader to accept as a statement of fact without any further explanation. From what I can tell, your explanation of why I am using the definition of a double standard “wrong” is nothing but a collection of statements that you expect me to accept as fact. You have offered no proof or even arguments about why your numerous statements are correct and why I should accept then as correct. You seem to be operating under the assumption that I, or any reader, will just automatically agree with you and then you appear to be upset or confounded (‘only someone with autism or some other disorder would fail to accept my word as gospel’) when I do not automatically agree with you. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, as I do, please understand that I am not just going to accept any statement you make as correct without at least some explanation as to why it is correct. Additionally, if I do not understand or agree with your explanation, I will question your explanation as well. Now back to the discussion. You asked me for my definition of a double standard and I provided it in post #35. You then asked me, from post #36, “Do you think a society based on reason, where individuals deal with one another productively, can be sustained in the presence of double standards?” I answered in post #42 and provided an example. If you believe, as I think that you do, that my application of the definition of a double standard is not correct based on the example that I provided, then please explain why knowing that I will not accept "You are not right" as an explanation. If you do not wish to explain why, then we will most likely have to accept that you and I have differing views and leave it at that.

Jon Southall, In post #63 you state, “What is a standard? I'm interested in your answer to that question.” I am confused. Are we moving away from the definition of a double standard now? You state that my definition of a double standard is correct but that I do not understand the definition of a double standard. You do not offer any explanation of why I am not applying the definition correctly nor do you provide anything that would help me understand the definition that you claim I do not understand. What would be the point of providing my definition of a standard? Even if I provided what you consider to be the “correct” definition of a standard, you would, I believe based on your previous statements, simply state that I do not understand the definition if I do not agree with your application of it. To avoid any possible stumbling on my part, you should provide a definition of a standard and explain the “correct” application of the definition and we can go from there.

Jon Southall, In post #59 you wrote, “Your definition is correct but you don't understand it's application.” Based on your statements, it seems that, although you stated that my definition of a double standard is correct, you have a different definition of a double standard. It appears that your definition of a double standard is something like: a double standard is when there is one standard that everyone must meet or rule that everyone is required to comply with but some people, or groups of people, are not required to meet the standard or comply with the rule while other people, or other groups of people, are required to meet the standard or comply with the rule. Is this correct? If the above is your definition of a double standard (or if your definition is similar), then your definition of a double standard is different than my definition of a double standard. My definition of a double standard, as stated in post #35, is: a double standard is a set of principles or rules that apply differently to one group of people or circumstances than to another. Under my definition, the law about 18 year olds is a double standard because there is a set of rules that apply differently to one group of people, those 18 years old or older, than to another, those younger than 18. Your driving license example is also an example of a double standard per my definition because there is a set of rules that apply differently to one group of people, those with driver’s license, than to another, those without a driver’s license. Under your definition (or what I assume to be your definition or similar to your definition) of a double standard, neither example would be an example of a double standard. When you wrote that my definition of a double standard is correct, it appears that, despite your claim in post #34 that you shall take everything that I write literally, you are reading more into my definition than what I wrote as my definition of a double standard. And when you wrote that I do not understand the application of the definition of a double standard, it seems to me that what you meant was that I do not understand your definition of a double standard. Of course, I could be wrong on both of these points. Now, to continue the discussion, you need to either accept my definition of a double standard as it is written and without reading anything more into it, or provide a new definition of a double standard that you and I can agree upon.

CriticalThinker2000, In post #56 you wrote, “Maybe we have different concepts of "functioning" and "speak" and "understand". Do I need to define each of those too?” Keeping in the spirit of the playfulness with which I assume you made the above statement, I will respond with a quote from you from post #54, “A concept is not equivalent to its definition.” Putting the assume playfulness aside, you also wrote, “Yes, I am saying that any functioning adult that speaks English should understand what a double standard is.” I am not suggesting that you, or I, or anyone else does not understand what a double standard is. I am very sure, based on your statements, that you fully understand your concept of a double standard. My point, which I will state again, is that your concept of a double standard, or my concept of a double standard, or anyone else’s concept of a double standard may be different. It is similar to the concept of beauty. You may have an understating of what beauty is and I may have an understanding of what beauty is, and anyone else may have an understanding of what beauty is, but that does not mean that all of us are going to have the same understanding of what beauty is nor does it mean that we will all find same things to be beautiful.

CriticalThinker2000, In post #54 you wrote, “Of course there is really a phenomenon that occurs which we call a double standard. A concept is not equivalent to its definition.” I do not understand the “we” in your statement. I may have a concept of a double standard, and tadmjones may have a concept of a double standard, and you or anyone else may have a concept of a double standard, but that does not mean that “we” have the same concept of a double standard. Yet your statement seems to suggest, and I could be wrong, that everyone does, or at least should have, the same concept of a double standard. Is this what you are suggesting?

Nicky, In post #46 you wrote, “That's a terrible definition. You might as well have said that the definition of double standard is everything.” I agree with you that if you have a different definition of a double standard, then my definition of a double standard must seem terrible. I assume that you do have a different definition even though you did not provide one. However, until you and I agree on the definition, of a double standard or anything, it is not possible to have further constructive dialogue. Do you have a definition of a double standard that you are willing to share? Perhaps we can agree on it.

Jon Southall, In post #47 you wrote, “Tadmjones is right though, if the law is that you must be over 18 to enter into a contract and this is applied to every individual, then this is the same standard being applied to everyone. It is not an example of a double standard.” You are now attempting to change the definition of a double standard from what I wrote in post #35 and you agreed to in post #36. Nowhere in the definition does it state anything about some standard being applied to everyone or a set of rules or principles applied to every individual. A double standard is defined as a set of principles or rules that apply differently to one group of people or circumstances than to another. So my example is an example of a double standard as per the agreed upon definition. There is a set of rules that apply differently to one group of people, those 18 years old or older, than to another, those younger than 18. Your example is also an example of a double standard as per the agreed upon definition. There is a rule or principal, no-one may initiate physical force against you, that applies differently to one group of people, everyone but you, than to another group of people, you (a group of one).