I was anticipated by a Greater Mind.

[Diogenes]

And of course, nothing the Scheisser says is worth reading.

[Stubby]

Obviously you didn't read it, so why are you pretending to know what argument he makes?

I certainly did read it (the whole address, not just the Wikipedia entry). But you're right that what I wrote is not a proper representation of his argument. I apologize.

I can't answer for Stubby, by the way.

The very core of his argument is this:

This feeling, forced on us we know not whence, that by obstinately believing that there are gods (although not to do so would be so easy both for our logic and our life) we are doing the universe the deepest service we can, seems part of the living essence of the religious hypothesis. If the hypothesis were true in all its parts, including this one, then pure intellectualism, with its veto on our making willing advances, would be an absurdity; and some participation of our sympathetic nature would be logically required. I, therefore, for one, cannot see my way to accepting the agnostic rules for truth-seeking, or wilfully agree to keep my willing nature out of the game. I cannot do so for this plain reason, that a rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule. That for me is the long and short of the formal logic of the situation, no matter what the kinds of truth might materially be.

His argument against scepticism is that it's better to risk being duped but having a shot at the truth. That's fine, actually, and I kind of accept it. But how do you choose which hypothesis to believe?

He then goes on to differentiate religious from naturalistic hypotheses.

The whole defence of religious faith hinges upon action. If the action required or inspired by the religious hypothesis is in no way different from that dictated by the naturalistic hypothesis, then religious faith is a pure superfluity, better pruned away, and controversy about its legitimacy is a piece of idle trifling, unworthy of serious minds. I myself believe, of course, that the religious hypothesis gives to the world an expression which specifically determines our reactions, and makes them in a large part unlike what they might be on a purely naturalistic scheme of belief.

But the action just being different is no reason to prefer religious hypotheses over naturalistic hypotheses. So his claim appears to be that religious hypotheses are not just different but better. I disagree.

I am still making my way through some of the most boring reading.
From your summary, Teahive, it would seem that the whole thing boils down to a version of Pascal's Wager?

Please say yes so I can stop reading this stuff.

[Diogenes]

299 The abolition of private (inherently Theistic and voluntary) charity, and its attempt to replace it with public "State-driven" "charity" (Marxism) was a clearly predictable consequence of the process of Dechristianization/Atheization, intentionally undertaken by the elites, for their own class and ideological ends and interests.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at October 31, 2013 05:40 PM (wAloV)

[Teahive]

The abolition of private (inherently Theistic and voluntary) charity

[Diogenes]

Perhaps you might like this quote better.

"Therefore, I come to the indisputable conclusion that we must precisely now smash the Black Hundreds clergy most decisively and ruthlessly and put down all resistance with such brutality that they will not forget it for several decades. ... The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and the reactionary bourgeoisie that we succeed in shooting on this occasion, the better because this "audience" must precisely now be taught a lesson in such a way that they will not dare to think about any resistance whatsoever for several decades." -- Lenin

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at October 31, 2013 05:54 PM (wAloV)

[Teahive]

Perhaps you might like this quote better.

I don't.

[Stubby]

Diogenes really likes to quote stuff without providing background and context.

The Black Hundreds (sometimes The Black Hundred), also known as the black-hundredists (Чёрная сотня, черносотенцы in Russian, or Chornaya sotnya, chernosotentsy) was an ultra-nationalist movement in Russia in the early 20th century. It was a staunch supporter of the House of Romanov and opposed any retreat from the autocracy of the reigning monarch. The Black Hundreds were also noted for extremist russocentric doctrines, xenophobia, anti-semitism and incitement to pogroms.

Russian Chernosotentsy, reactionary, antirevolutionary, and anti-Semitic groups formed in Russia during and after the Russian Revolution of 1905. The most important of these groups were the League of the Russian People (Soyuz Russkogo Naroda), League of the Archangel Michael (Soyuz Mikhaila Arkhangela), and Council of United Nobility (Soviet Obedinennogo Dvoryanstva). The Black Hundreds were composed primarily of landowners, rich peasants, bureaucrats, merchants, police officials, and clergymen, who supported the principles of Orthodoxy, autocracy, and Russian nationalism. Particularly active from 1906 until 1914, they conducted raids (with the unofficial approval of the government) against various revolutionary groups and pogroms against the Jews.

Imagine being against people like them, hmmm. Imagine hating Christian clergy, so obviously followers of founder their religion, that they preached tolerance and love of their follow man.
Communists, atheist or not, would not be the only type of people willing to 'smash' these terrible people.

[Schneibster]

The Russians are somewhat socially incomprehensible. And I speak from personal experience.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes really likes to quote stuff without providing background and context.

The Black Hundreds (sometimes The Black Hundred), also known as the black-hundredists (Чёрная сотня, черносотенцы in Russian, or Chornaya sotnya, chernosotentsy) was an ultra-nationalist movement in Russia in the early 20th century. It was a staunch supporter of the House of Romanov and opposed any retreat from the autocracy of the reigning monarch. The Black Hundreds were also noted for extremist russocentric doctrines, xenophobia, anti-semitism and incitement to pogroms.

Russian Chernosotentsy, reactionary, antirevolutionary, and anti-Semitic groups formed in Russia during and after the Russian Revolution of 1905. The most important of these groups were the League of the Russian People (Soyuz Russkogo Naroda), League of the Archangel Michael (Soyuz Mikhaila Arkhangela), and Council of United Nobility (Soviet Obedinennogo Dvoryanstva). The Black Hundreds were composed primarily of landowners, rich peasants, bureaucrats, merchants, police officials, and clergymen, who supported the principles of Orthodoxy, autocracy, and Russian nationalism. Particularly active from 1906 until 1914, they conducted raids (with the unofficial approval of the government) against various revolutionary groups and pogroms against the Jews.

In this particular case, I will have to say you taught me something. I didn't know there was an organization known specifically as the "black hundreds." I thought he was just creatively referring to Russian Orthodox Priests.


So congratulations. You've proved that Lenin didn't kill any innocent religious people.

[Schneibster]

In this particular case, I will have to say you taught me something. I didn't know there was an organization known specifically as the "black hundreds." I thought he was just creatively referring to Russian Orthodox Priests.


So congratulations. You've proved that Lenin didn't kill any innocent religious people.

No, he proved Lenin didn't care whether he killed religious people or not.