Secular Intolerance

[Belinda]

Professor Needleman:

In the present debates both sides tend to treat God as a purely external entity accessible only by faith—faith defined as belief unsupported by evidence or logic. My book presents the idea of God as representing a conscious force within the human psyche which is accessible through careful inner self-examination. The process of inner self-examination brings about a knowledge that is as rigorous and supported by evidence as anything science has to offer. At the same time, this point of view redefines faith as a knowledge that is attained not only by intellectual means, but also through the rigorous development of the emotional side of the human psyche. Such emotional knowledge is unknown to the isolated intellect and has therefore been mistakenly labeled as “irrational.”

This “new” idea of God proposes that all the characteristics traditionally attributed to the purely external God are, in an important sense, attributes of this inner force of consciousness. When this inner energy of higher consciousness is experienced, it then becomes clear that such an energy permeates the entire universe. In this way, it is through self-knowledge that the existence of an external God is verified and understood.

I interpret Prof. Needleman as a proponent of God as process, but not God as entity. Prof. Needleman must be aware of such religionists as television evangelicals, and various 'Eastern' gurus , and cult supervisors, who have got a lot of money for themselves from their various religious activities. It follows, as Needleman who is no ignoramus must be aware , that America needs a reasonable God and a reasonable religion which will appeal to the masses.The God of process is a candidate which is wholly immanent and so will suit the unbelievers and atheists as well as the more devotionally-inclined churchy people.

I reckon that Needleman would be aware also of false prophets and liars who promise a primrose path to God.

[Nick_A]

Professor Needleman:

In the present debates both sides tend to treat God as a purely external entity accessible only by faith—faith defined as belief unsupported by evidence or logic. My book presents the idea of God as representing a conscious force within the human psyche which is accessible through careful inner self-examination. The process of inner self-examination brings about a knowledge that is as rigorous and supported by evidence as anything science has to offer. At the same time, this point of view redefines faith as a knowledge that is attained not only by intellectual means, but also through the rigorous development of the emotional side of the human psyche. Such emotional knowledge is unknown to the isolated intellect and has therefore been mistakenly labeled as “irrational.”

This “new” idea of God proposes that all the characteristics traditionally attributed to the purely external God are, in an important sense, attributes of this inner force of consciousness. When this inner energy of higher consciousness is experienced, it then becomes clear that such an energy permeates the entire universe. In this way, it is through self-knowledge that the existence of an external God is verified and understood.

I interpret Prof. Needleman as a proponent of God as process, but not God as entity. Prof. Needleman must be aware of such religionists as television evangelicals, and various 'Eastern' gurus , and cult supervisors, who have got a lot of money for themselves from their various religious activities. It follows, as Needleman who is no ignoramus must be aware , that America needs a reasonable God and a reasonable religion which will appeal to the masses.The God of process is a candidate which is wholly immanent and so will suit the unbelievers and atheists as well as the more devotionally-inclined churchy people.

I reckon that Needleman would be aware also of false prophets and liars who promise a primrose path to God.

Of course. Prof Needleman grew up an atheist and turned off by secularized religion. But like Simone Weil his need for truth was greater than the need to argue so he retained an open mind so was able to grow in his understanding regardless of any negative influences around him.

[fooloso4]

Nick:

I am part Russian and part Armenian. I know very well the methods of secular intimidation from what my family endured during both the Russian revolution and the Armenian Genocide.

Everyone has a story Nicky. Here’s part of mine:

My ancestors were from Russia and the Ukraine. When I was a child we would have Passover Seder at my great grandmother's house. Several of my aunts and uncles had numbers tattooed on their arms. Being children and not knowing better we would ask about them about it. I still remember the mix of emotion that crossed their faces including, shame, anger, fear, confusion, pain, suffering, defiance, and hatred. Now of course what happened to them was not at the hands of secularists but good Christian Nazis. It did not stop when the reached America either. It was not secularists who tormented, abused, and banned them. It was good church going Christians who hated them for killing God.

Fortunately my own experience was quite different. I grew up in a secular community that included Christians, Jews, atheists and probably others that I knew nothing of. We happily attended church functions and activities at the synagogue, bar mitzvahs and confirmations, Christmas and Hanukkah parties. We shared meals and ate foods we would never have at home. We would say to each other: "my family does this and yours does that", "we believe this and you believe that". Bobby said there is no God and Sally said he is going to hell, we talked about it and we all played together and were friends.

In their war against superstition …

War? Not for me. I discuss these questions here, but not elsewhere. Most people know nothing of my views unless they ask. What anyone believes about such things really does not matter. What matters is what they do in the public realm. That is what secular tolerance is all about.

Nick:

But like Simone Weil his need for truth was greater than the need to argue so he retained an open mind ...

If only you could learn from them to do the same!

[Greta]

My mother was raised a Catholic. The devout nuns at her school, in mum's words, beat her black and blue.

The worst was when she was caught drawing a design for a bikini while tuning out of a lesson. Aside from a beating, she was forced to walk around the school for the rest of the day with a sign around her neck saying, I AM A WICKED GIRL.

No one is more intlerant than a teist, as the OP has made repeatedly abundantly clear. Even his attempted example to equate the extreme tolerance given to theists by western secularists with the ruthless and uncompromising intolerance of theism fell on its face because reality came out.
In truth, the level of tolerance given to theists is perhaps historically unprecedented.

Given the ruin that's befallen US governance (and the US people) in 2017, Carl Popper's paradox of tolerance seems to be prophetic.

So the issue is actually far too much secular tolerance, including a continued tax free ride, even for religions who perform no charitable activities.

[fooloso4]

Greta:

I don't recall if you posted this before:

The paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945, is a decision theory paradox. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

[Nick_A]

Greta:

I don't recall if you posted this before:

The paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945, is a decision theory paradox. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

Who says I can't agree with an atheist?

“I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness.”

– Christopher Hitchens

What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. You would think that since they had these earlier experiences of lunacy they would learn from them. But no, apparently they wish to get even so who suffers? The kids naturally.

[Greta]

What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.
What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.
What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.
What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.
What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.
What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.

Nick, I thought I'd save you some typing. This will save you from repeating your mantra for your next dozen posts. You're welcome.

You would think that since they had these earlier experiences of lunacy they would learn from them.

Clearly we have not learned. We are still interacting with you.

[Dubious]

The paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945, is a decision theory paradox. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

This is not really a paradox. Was there ever a society that was tolerant without limit? It's the manner of expression which binds it into paradox.

Forcing logic into such deviations signifies nothing. Within the narrow field of human tolerance there emerges resistance and at its more extreme, aggression against those who would advance their own agendas against established tolerance. This is especially true since tolerance is barely instinctual in populations overall though more grounded in Western societies.

This supposed paradox in a sense reverses itself for in order to maintain tolerance within societies, it must perforce be intolerant to that which would destroy its inclusive, beneficial relationships...if that's what it thinks it has! It amounts to what any organism would do to protect itself as, for example, one's immune system.

[Nick_A]

What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.
What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.
What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.
What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.
What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.
What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.

Nick, I thought I'd save you some typing. This will save you from repeating your mantra for your next dozen posts. You're welcome.

You would think that since they had these earlier experiences of lunacy they would learn from them.

Clearly we have not learned. We are still interacting with you.

Greta wrote:

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 02, 2017 11:56 pm
You would think that since they had these earlier experiences of lunacy they would learn from them.

Clearly we have not learned. We are still interacting with you.

How ironic. – Christopher Hitchens verifies Greta’s intolerance. This calls for a toast but who or what do I toast?

[Greta]

How ironic. – Christopher Hitchens verifies Greta’s intolerance. This calls for a toast but who or what do I toast?

Nick, don't you think it's time to cut the pretence and get real?

Any reader of this thread would see you as the most intolerant person here - by a country mile. You keep hanging yourself on your own petard.

If you moderated a forum I think I would have been banned within a week - if I was lucky! You lasted for years on the forum I moderated and enjoyed thousands of posts before you turned extra nasty, after which I had no choice. I either accept being accused and abused by PM or do something about it. I deleted the abusive PMs that prompted your banning and, in hindsight I should have kept them as evidence but I didn't expect months of your jaundiced nonsense. Mods are not paid and don't have to put up with self entitled members accusing them of being a liar.

You overstepped, yet you cannot take responsibility.

[fooloso4]

Nick:

What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. You would think that since they had these earlier experiences of lunacy they would learn from them. But no, apparently they wish to get even so who suffers? The kids naturally.

The facts speak for themselves. Anyone who is interested can visit the other website and see how many new topics have been approved in the last four months since you were banned that support religious views of some sort. The facts make it clear that the problem is not secularism.

To get even? What are you talking about? Are you a Nazi nun who persecuted the Jews and abused Greta’s mother? My criticism of you has nothing to do with anyone else. Pointing out your misrepresentation of important thinkers is not getting even. Pointing out your deceptive argumentative tactics is not getting even. Questioning your claims about transcendent knowledge, objective meaning and purpose, and remembering what you learned before you were born is not getting even. Pointing out tactics for avoiding answering questions that if you did would make clear the weakness and confusion of your claims is not getting even. The fact that you are even thinking in those terms suggests that it is you who wants to get even.

What is it that you think we should have learned from the experiences of our relatives? That Christians hating Jews is secular intolerance? That abusive nuns is secular intolerance?

How is it that “the kids” suffer from these pointless internet squabbles?

[Dubious]

What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.
What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.
What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.
What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.
What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.
What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4.

Nick, I thought I'd save you some typing. This will save you from repeating your mantra for your next dozen posts. You're welcome.

You would think that since they had these earlier experiences of lunacy they would learn from them.

Clearly we have not learned. We are still interacting with you.

Greta wrote:

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 02, 2017 11:56 pm
You would think that since they had these earlier experiences of lunacy they would learn from them.

Clearly we have not learned. We are still interacting with you.

How ironic. – Christopher Hitchens verifies Greta’s intolerance. This calls for a toast but who or what do I toast?

I wasn't going to get involved in all this stupid bullshit but YOU quoting Hitchens is beyond ironic! Don't use him to justify ANYTHING you say. I read a lot of his works and can tell you categorically there is nothing he wrote that could give you comfort. Quoting out of context (one of your favorite pastimes) is the easiest way to keep this merry-go-round lubricated.

Theism was anathema to Hitchens as most already know; he would have regarded your absolute obstinacy to any and all well-expressed counter arguments as precisely the kind of mental damage theism can inflict, children being among its first causalities. Hitchens wasn't in the least diplomatic in espousing his views and would only have had contempt for yours and how you respond to perfectly valid arguments.

He despised the kind of totalitarian thinking that theism, far beyond anything secular, is capable of.

[Nick_A]

How ironic. – Christopher Hitchens verifies Greta’s intolerance. This calls for a toast but who or what do I toast?

Nick, don't you think it's time to cut the pretence and get real?

Any reader of this thread would see you as the most intolerant person here - by a country mile. You keep hanging yourself on your own petard.

If you moderated a forum I think I would have been banned within a week - if I was lucky! You lasted for years on the forum I moderated and enjoyed thousands of posts before you turned extra nasty, after which I had no choice. I either accept being accused and abused by PM or do something about it. I deleted the abusive PMs that prompted your banning and, in hindsight I should have kept them as evidence but I didn't expect months of your jaundiced nonsense. Mods are not paid and don't have to put up with self entitled members accusing them of being a liar.

You overstepped, yet you cannot take responsibility.

Greta, you are obviously lying, You assert that I’ve turned extra nasty. You cannot find a post of mine being nasty much less extra nasty. I have no reason to do so. If I’m wrong you’ll produce one of these extra nasty posts. When did I ever PM you? As I’ve said I did send F4 a PM telling him what he can do with his threats at intimidation but when did I ever PM you and say anything nasty?

The truth is that the idea of human consciousness becoming capable of connecting levels of reality - above and below is offensive to you and cannot be tolerated. Freedom from secular imagination is intolerable for those believing in the duality of secularism. The idea is like putting a red flag in front of a bull. This isn’t secular theism which you accept but adding an additional conscious vertical dimension to secularism which is offensive to the secular mindset. You and F4 are content to take philosophy out of a philosophy forum to placate dominant secularism. OK, so under those circumstances, who needs Philosophy Forums? If I were to argue abortion rights it would be in the context of respect for life and not as a matter of politics. But the meaning of respect for life is beyond political relativism and no one is left on Philosophy forums to discuss it so abortion rights is limited to political philosophy. This is just superficial for those with an interest in philosophy as the love of wisdom. So you and F4 have won but what you’ve won is not attractive for me in relation to philosophy. If we’ve gone secular I’d prefer in the interest of diversity to discuss the aesthetic merits of the female behind from several perspectives.

[Greta]

You PMd me after the thread was not approved, accusing me of unfair and biased moderation. My reply prompted you to call me a liar.

That is abuse. Thus you were discarded like another any other trash. If you abuse any mods in that way you will achieve the same result. You reaped what you had sown. It's that simple.

By the way, as an experienced member you would normally not need a new thread approved but the mods before me had already placed you on probation for rudeness, with your warnings already in place before the final, decisive one.

[Nick_A]

You PMd me after the thread was not approved, accusing me of unfair and biased moderation. My reply prompted you to call me a liar.

That is abuse. Thus you were discarded like another any other trash. If you abuse any mods in that way you will achieve the same result. You reaped what you had sown. It's that simple.

By the way, as an experienced member you would normally not need a new thread approved but the mods before me had already placed you on probation for rudeness, with your warnings already in place before the final, decisive one.

This is simply not true. If you had tried to intimidate me as did F4 then I would have told you what to do with your threats against the essence of philosophy. I remember once posting a complaint to Scott about something humorous taken wrongly and we had a little laugh about it. I never had a problem with a mod. As I said, if a secularist mod tries to intimidate me into abandoning my highly respected sources I will tell them in a PM what they can do with their intimidations. If a philosophy site goes secular and abandons the purpose of philosophy, then the only thing worth discussing are the aesthetics of the female behind and possibly the NY Mets.