What’s the difference?
One says God demands it. The other says Good demands it.
The difference - o.
I am thinking that religion is just the earlier form of politics. Each religion - a different party with different party leaders. All of them claiming what rules to obey. All of them Social Justice Warriors fighting for the cause and who to best lead.
Anyone have an opinion?
Religion can be to a degree political, if it wants to.
Politics can be religious, if they want to.
I believe this is proven in history already,
so there is no need for me to explain in any greater detail.
More to the point [mine for example] what is the difference between those who insist that only those who embrace their own God or their own Good are eligible to be “one of us”?
In other words, their God or Good is anchored to their innermost self/soul necessarily in tandem with the right/righteous thing to do in their interactions with others who uphold conflicting value judgments.
On the other hand, what do they believe about their God/Good and what are they able to demonstrate that all rational/virtuous men and women are obligated to believe in turn
And then [of course] this part: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
I wasn’t concerned with how much of each is in the other but rather - what is the essential difference?
I am not seeing any.
That isn’t “more to the point”. That is beside the point.
Is there any essential difference between the two (whether good or bad)? What would that difference be?
How on earth could that be the case? Either someone believes that their God or their Good reflects that which all reasonable and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe in in turn [if they wish to be thought of as reasonable and virtuous] or they espouse one or another rendition of spiritual and moral relativity. Something along the lines of “you’re right from your side and I’m right from mine”.
Or, like me, they suggest that both God and Good are rooted subjectively in the actual lives that people live. And not in any essential, objective or overarching assessment able to be concocted by theologists or philosophers or scientists.
Then we need a set of circumstances in which to explore our own respective moral and political and spiritual value judgments.
In what context? Note one and elaborate on your own lack if distinction.
In ANY context. Is there actually any difference regardless of context?
Okay, I’ll pick one. Just in an attempt to figure out what it is exactly that you are arguing here.
Animal rights.
There are those who use either God or the Good to make a distinction between their own value judgments here, and the value judgments of those who cite a different God or a different interpretation of the same God. Or, for the No God folks, they embrace what is often described as a Humanist recognition of “the Good” – a political prejudice which many of them insist is not a prejudice at all. Instead, they do divide up the world between “one of us” [the good guys] and “one of them” [the bad guys].
I do make a distinction here.
In other words, from my point of view…
As opposed to my own frame of mind:
Now, in regard to your own value judgments, what rights do animals have or not have in relationship to human beings? How do you not see the distinction I make as an important one? Or choose another issue.
Again, unless I missing your point.
But: whatever your point is bring it down to earth and relate it to a situation in which scientists or theologians or philosophers would discuss their own values as either applicable only to them or to all rational and virtuous people.
Many scientists reject both God and the Good in their work. They are interested instead only in those material relationships able to be broached, examined, tested and assessed using the scientific method.
As opposed to theologians who subsume even that in God. Or to philosophers convinced that, deontologically, virtue is derived from reason.
My “argument” (my assertion) is that there seems to be no significant difference between politics and religion. You seem to be agreeing but I can’t tell for sure. And then I am asking if anyone can point out any significant difference between them.
I don’t see how animal rights points out any significant difference between politics and religion other than at times being one of the very many political/religious party platform issues. There are always individual policy arguments between parties within politics and within religions. That merely points out another similarity. I am looking for DIFFERENCES, not similarities.
Politics in what context? Politics in a theocracy? Politics in a nation ruled by ideology – Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R.? Politics in a nation commited to democracy and the rule of law?
Now, politics can revolve around the belief that there is “a God, the God, my God” and that right and wrong are clearly differentiated by Him. Judged by Him. Or politics can be pursued by secular doctrinaire objectivists who insist that only their own ethical values – liberal, conservative etc. – are in sync with objective morality.
In that case, what really is the difference between a theocracy and a political faction in power that demands all citizens subscribe only to their own authoritarian dogmas?
Or else.
And then the part that revolves around political economy. The way the world is run today. Those who are committed to sustaining a global economy in which politics revolves largely around “show me the money”. Here some are able to rationalize that with religion [Protestantism], some with ideology [Libertarianism] and others solely with their own selfish wants and needs [nihilism].
Come on, in any given communities/nations there are going to be actual folkways, mores, laws on the book that either reward or punish human behaviors in regard to animals. Things citizens are able to do, things they are not. Sometimes this flows from conflicting religions sometimes from conflicting political prejudices.
Again, however, my point here revolves around this:
So, in regard to either similarities or differences, what becomes far more crucial for me is not what any particular individual professes to believe about animal rights – re either God or the Good – but the extent to which they become aware of how and why their belief may be rooted in the assessment I make here regarding “I” interacting with others in the is/ought world:
This is certainly applicable in my view regarding our individual value judgments about animal rights. Similarities or difference aside is there a way for theologians, philosophers, scientists or politicians to provide us with either the optimal rational/moral argument here, or in fact the only rational/moral argument.
And, if so, why is it always only their own?
obsrvr524: My “argument” (my assertion) is that there seems to be no significant difference between politics and religion. You seem to be agreeing but I can’t tell for sure. And then I am asking if anyone can point out any significant difference between them."
I: Politics in what context? Politics in a theocracy? Politics in a nation ruled by ideology – Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R.? Politics in a nation commited to democracy and the rule of law?
Now, politics can revolve around the belief that there is “a God, the God, my God” and that right and wrong are clearly differentiated by Him. Judged by Him. Or politics can be pursued by secular doctrinaire objectivists who insist that only their own ethical values – liberal, conservative etc. – are in sync with objective morality.
K: at this point, I must agree with IAM…I see vast differences between politics and religion…
for example, religion, for the most part, derives from a fixed, set book or books, dogma, that
is unchangeable and fixed for all time…
take the bible for example, real believers feel that the bible is fixed and set for all times…
it cannot be changed… Murder is murder is murder for all times as defined by god…
whereas in politics, what is fixed and set today, is changed tomorrow… we can see
this whereas in my lifetime, we have gone from it being illegal for a white person to
marry a black person, Loving v. Virginia, 1967… to today, where we even allow
Gays, gasp, yes, gays to marry… but you can’t have this sort of vast change in
religion…if it is written, it is fixed and set…
now we can have theology, as in the theological political beliefs of the Middle east,
where countries like Iran, which is officially called: The Islamic Republic of Iran…
note the position of the word, Islamic… it is a Islamic theocracy… where religion
creates the political ideology… so, what is written in the Koran, is the official
state policy… and this is exactly what the Christians want to create in America today,
but with Christianity instead of Islam…the head of Iran is called the “Supreme Leader”
sounds like a bad “Get Smart” episode… anyway, this leader is theological in nature,
not political…this political leader is not elected in a democratic fashion…
the “Assembly of Experts” is responsible for electing the “Supreme Leader”
but the “Assembly” is not allowed in any way, shape or form, to control or
oversee the “supreme Leader”…
so, can you tell the difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and
the U.S?
I can and I’ll bet you can too…
Kropotkin
You seem to be entirely missing the point.
Leave it the reigning local communist to actually come up with a legitimate response. I’m surprised and have to give credit where credit is due. Although I have to warn you that you risk getting kicked out of the Far-Left club by saying anything that comes so dangerously close to being true.
Religion is about a fixed doctrine. Politics is about varying values.
That is one of the first things from this entire board that I have to actually think about for more than 30 seconds to determine its validity. I’m even going to have to ask my wife about that one (and then suffer the ubiquitous consequences for speaking anything the slightest bit philosophical in her presence).
Fixed versus varying. I’m not yet convinced that it is an actual difference, but it does seem intriguing. Very good.
I’m going to have to get back to you on that one. You might be Right (Left try to forgive him).
In other words, this is all about me getting your point and not you getting mine. But if politics revolves around obtaining the power necessary to enact policies that do in fact reward some behaviors and punish others, the inclusion of “a God, the God, my God” in enacting and enforcing those policies can make all the difference in the world. At least with politics in most of our modern industrial nations, one can appeal to factions all along the political spectrum.
Now, you will either address the points I raise above or you won’t. And you will address them in regard to animal rights or some other moral/political conflagration or you won’t.
And, if you don’t, I will chalk it up to one more “serious philosopher” here more intent on keeping the discussions of “politics vs. religion” up on the skyhooks.
Anyway, what I am most interested in finding out about you is the extent to which you are just one more run-of-the-mill political objectivist or if you have insights interesting enough to explore further. In regard to particular sets of circumstances.
Also, this part:
It’s similar to the charge that only liberals pursue “politically correct” policies.
As if for liberals to suggest that conservatives have their own ideological renditions of them both is somehow to miss the point about what they really mean.
Take any issue and there is a liberal narrative and a conservative narrative. There are positions taken by liberals said to reflect true social justice and true political correctness and positions taken by conservatives said in turn to reflect true social justice and true political correctness.
But the last thing that either camp wants to believe are the arguments that I propose. In other words, that both political correctness and social justice are derived largely from existential prejudices rooted in historical, cultural and circumstantial contexts. Rooted in actual lived lives that predispose some to go in one direction, others in another.
It’s not whether their side or the other side is right, but that one side has to be right in order for the other side to be wrong. It’s the actual existence of an objective moral and political font that allows them to anchor the Real Me in the Right Thing To Do.
You still seem to be missing the point. Apparently you have other issues concerning conflicts on your mind that are blinding you from the question being asked. Your replies keep pointing out similarities between religion and politics - similar internal conflicts, similar arguments, similar subjective values, and so on. I am asking for distinct DIFFERENCES between what religions (any religion, all religions) attempt to do with a population versus what politicians (any politician, all politicians) attempt to do with a population.
I guess that you can’t see what I am asking so I will leave it at that.
As to this answer supplied by Mr Kropotkin…
After sleeping on it, it occurred to me that the Far-Left club would probably be very proud of Mr Kropotkin for stating something that on the surface appears so true while in fact is not actually true at all. That is the fundamental wellspring of leftist power - subterfuge. So why isn’t his answer actually true?
It is true that religions are usually very old (not all), their values are stated in documents that they promote, and they attempt to conserve their party and its values throughout time (“conservative parties”) - and its been a very long time. The religions were once the only policy makers for all countries other than military supported kings and emperors. They either got the public policies from a priest or from a military force (often from both). Most religions have been around for a long time so of course they are still currently supporting those sometimes ancient ideals. They profess them to be ideals that are eternally true, so why not.
The assertion has been made that politicians aren’t about that but instead merely support current issues that vary through time. I think that is sometimes true, but not a fundamental distinction. Politicians often support and promote those same ancient ideals (Right leaning) as well as other ideals professed to be eternal truths. Politicians often support newer ideals (Left leaning). Some politicians support reinterpreting old ideals. Some politicians come up with new ideals. But some religions are also new with new ideals.
His response doesn’t seem to be about dogma versus fluidity but rather of merely old versus new (conservation versus change). But both religion and politics involve both. Many religions are very old so there are more religions supporting old ideals than politics supporting old ideals, but that doesn’t define a clear distinction.
Secular ideals are actually a religion. Interestingly Secularism is a religion that promotes the lack of religion (any OTHER religion) - “Other religions bad, our religion good” - same as all religions do. “But let’s not call ours a religion”. That makes secularism distinct. With that idea they can attack every other religion as something bad merely because it is a “religion” without having to deal with what is good or bad about them - a typical liberalist ploy (currently being employed by Mr Joe Biden and company in the US race for US President - “just go vote for me right NOW against Mr Trump and then afterward I will tell you what it is going to cost your country and the world” - the party of secrets). It is really hard to believe that in America (a supposed democracy) someone could actually say that in an open presidential race. I suspect (and hope) only in America and only because of the united cabal of the mainstream media in the US shielding Mr Biden from scrutiny.
Ideals are ideals, religious or political. They don’t change. Democracy is an ideal, a sustaining and ancient ideal. Communism is an ideal, more recently distinguished and named, but still a fixed ideal. These are examples of political ideals that do not change through time nor profess to change. No one says “We need democracy now but later we will change it to a dictatorship”. No one says, “We need Communism now, but later maybe will decide to be democratic.” They are FIXED political ideals being promoted through centuries.
And they each (religion and political ideals) have their own version of dogma - “separation of church and state”, “wealth distributed as per need”, “one party-one nation”, “Bill of Rights”, “Right to Bear arms”, “right to work”, “China good - America bad”, and so on versus the familiar religious dogmas; “pray always”, “attend church services”, “seek Heaven avoid Hell”, “consult the priesthood”, “obey the laws of the land”, “bow to the East” (an interesting one at minimum), and so on. And in both cases, religious and political, if a citizen refutes the dogma of the ruling party or priesthood, they are surveilled, secretly judged, and condemned, often to death.
So after careful consideration I see Mr Kropotkin’s answer to be about a difference between liberal progressivism and conservatism rather than between religion and political party. And that Secular liberalism and progressive communism is filled with ideological dogma just as every other religion.
Have I missed something or are we back to square one?
I can’t fathom what you are getting at because you never take your “world of words” assessments down out of the clouds and encompass what you believe the similarities and differences are re Religion vs. politics.
How about this…
Right now there are hearings in the U.S. Senate aimed at putting Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court. She is not only a staunch conservative but roots that conservativism in an equally staunch commitment to the Catholic Church.
Politics and religion, right?
But to what extent does her nomination revolve arund “politics vs. religion”? In particular as it relates to her views on abortion.
Similarities and differences? Well, it depends on the extent to which she is a moral and political objectivist in regard to her political values. And then the extent to which she attaches that to her religious values.
She claims that she will not bring her own particular faith in God into her decisions. That she will first and foremost render unto the Constitution that which is legally just and appropriate.
But if that is the case what does this tell us about her religious faith? Are we actually to believe that if her God and the Pope deem abortion to be the killing of unborn babies, she can still rule that legally this is not murder?
Now my point is that there is no really significant difference between politics and religion for those who believe that in regard to them they are able to embody the “real me” in sync with the “right thing to do”. Either politically or religiously. You vote against abortion as either a legislator or a judge because your value judgments are derived from an objectivist frame of mind. And you do this either because your values are derived from one or another religious dogma, or one or another secular dogma.
That’s where they can be very similar indeed. For all practical purposes.
So, is yours?
Then there are those like me who suggest that individual value judgments are rooted more in the arguments I make in my signature threads. That in a No God world there does not appear to be a way in which to establish an objective morality…and thus the “best of all possible worlds” would seem to revolve instead around “moderation, negotiation and compromise” – democracy and the rule of law – embedded in the historical reality of political economy.
Same with “political correctness” and “social justice warrior”. Whether from religious or secular dogmas, objectivists all along the political spectrum will invariably divide the world up between “one of us” [the good guys] and “one of them” [the bad guys].
Do you?
I will repeat once more, you seem to be completely missing the question and instead want to pursue a different conversation apparently concerning obectivism and my personal views. That should be a different thread.
As I have indicated, I accept that you don’t understand (“can’t fathom”) the question. WHY you don’t understand it is not terribly relevant. It is a pretty simple question that at least Mr Kropotkin understood.
Now you are talking about one person’s possible conflicting interests. I don’t agree with your argument but the point is that you still are not seeing the only question being asked. I am NOT asking about any conflict between religion and political party ideals.
Again you point out similarities and ask my personal views. That is NOT the topic. I am asking for broad based DIFFERENCES. How many times do I have to say it? And my personal views are NOT the topic either. I am asking for the views concerning the differences from OTHERS on this board. I already stated my view - that there is no substantial difference. What is so hard to understand about that?
That just goes back to what I said in the beginning - “One says ‘God’, the others says the ‘Good’”. Both say “We good. Them bad”. That is a SIMILARITY, not a DIFFERENCE.
Do you have trouble with those two concepts - similarity versus difference?
Start it then. Are you or are you not an objectivist given my own understanding of the word: someone who believes their own moral and political values are the embodiment of a core self able to grasp the most rational and virtuous behaviors. Given a particular context in which there are well-known conflicting moral narratives and political agendas.
Note to others:
Anyone care to take a crack at this? If you were to take his words here, what would you imagine he is saying about the similarities and differences re politics vs. religion.
No, I noted a particular context now “in the news” in which I examined 1] politics and religion and 2] religion vs. politics. Ask your own question here and answer it yourself. So, that I can see more clearly what you are getting at.
And what is your argument here? We can take it to another thread.
Again, note to others:
A little help here. By “broad based”, is he referring to “serious philosophers” attempts to exchange technical, didactic assessments of “similarities” and “differences” regarding “politics vs. religion”? And, then, only after pinning down the definition and meaning of the words, actually delving into a context in which both politics and religion are now playing themselves out “in reality” in the Senate?
No, the argument that I wish to make is that there are religious congregations who insist that only their own God counts. Just as there are secular politicians who insist that only their own Good counts. God and the Good are interchangeable here. And “for all practical purposes” they want to create a world in which everyone thinks like they do. Why? Because the way they think is thought by them to reflect the way in which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think.
Just ask them.
Whereas I see moral and political and spiritual value judgments here as rooted more in the arguments I make in my signature threads. And you will either be willing to read them or not. And, if you do, you will either note how and why you agree with them or you don’t.
Given a particular set of circumstances.
Yes, but the God that the religious folks pray to is invariably seen to be both omniscient and omnipotent. And that is an entirely different frame of mind from the secular politician who claims only that the Good is predicated on one or another secular ideology. To say “We good. Them bad”, with an all knowing, all powerful God around on Judgment Day is on thing. To say “We good. Them bad” from the perspective of just one particular set of assumptions from one particular doctrinaire Humanist agenda another thing altogether.
While, again, my interest is less in noting these distinctions, and more in suggesting that both the religious and non-religious objectivists derive their value judgments from the manner in which I construe the meaning dasein out in a world of conflicting goods embedded in a particular political economy.
So you agree with me.
Thank you.
More to the point [mine], do you agree with me that in regard to religious and political value judgments, the self is ceaselessly constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed existentially given a trajectory of unique experiences, relationships and access to ideas. And from the cradle to the grave.
And, if you do, in regard to an issue like abortion, how do you see your own “I” as more or less fractured and fragmented?
obsrvr524:
Ideals are ideals, religious or political. They don’t change. Democracy is an ideal, a sustaining and ancient ideal. Communism is an ideal, more recently distinguished and named, but still a fixed ideal. These are examples of political ideals that do not change through time nor profess to change. No one says “We need democracy now but later we will change it to a dictatorship”. No one says, “We need Communism now, but later maybe will decide to be democratic.” They are FIXED political ideals being promoted through centuries.
And they each (religion and political ideals) have their own version of dogma - “separation of church and state”, “wealth distributed as per need”, “one party-one nation”, “Bill of Rights”, “Right to Bear arms”, “right to work”, “China good - America bad”, and so on versus the familiar religious dogmas; “pray always”, “attend church services”, “seek Heaven avoid Hell”, “consult the priesthood”, “obey the laws of the land”, “bow to the East” (an interesting one at minimum), and so on. And in both cases, religious and political, if a citizen refutes the dogma of the ruling party or priesthood, they are surveilled, secretly judged, and condemned, often to death.
So after careful consideration I see Mr Kropotkin’s answer to be about a difference between liberal progressivism and conservatism rather than between religion and political party. And that Secular liberalism and progressive communism is filled with ideological dogma just as every other religion."
K: as I have work in less then an hour, I must move fast…
ideals change all the time, they are not fixed and set for all time… that was my point…
how the Greeks saw democracy and how we see democracy is a vast difference…
and part of that difference comes from the socio-economic times they lived
in and what we currently lived through…my comments were not through the lens of
liberal vs conservative, but through the lens of the changes in ideals…
my comments had no liberal or conservative bias…
the many different versions of communism, from Marx to Lenin to Stalin to Mao,
to the more political theorist like Althusser, gives us some idea of the vast differences
that “plague” communism…communism has as many different sides to it as
any ideology we have seen in a long time…and those sides change and adapt to
ever changing enviroments…the ideal of communism has quite often change…
and time is up… I will try to remember to post either later today or later tomorrow…
Kropotkin