The cock, that is the trumpet to the morn,
Doth with his lofty and shrill-sounding throat
Awake the god of day, and at his warning,
Whether in sea or fire, in earth or air,
Th’ extravagant and erring spirit hies
To his confine, and of the truth herein
This present object made probation.
MARCELLUS
It faded on the crowing of the cock.
Some say that ever ’gainst that season comes
Wherein our Savior’s birth is celebrated,
This bird of dawning singeth all night long;
And then, they say, no spirit dare stir abroad,
The nights are wholesome; then no planets strike,
No fairy takes, nor witch hath power to charm,
So hallowed and so gracious is that time.
HORATIO
So have I heard and do in part believe it.
-copied from here.
Relevant phrases:
"the god of day"
"our Savior's birth"
"in part believe it"
Relevant to Anderson's The Broken Sword:
"No fairy takes..."
"...nor witch has power to charm"
38 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I am not impressed by the secularism of our times because there is so much that is wrong with it. I was reminded of what Cerdic said to Flandry in the revised version of "Tiger by the Tail" (AGENT OF THE TERRAN EMPIRE, Gregg Press, 1979, page 12): "I 'know' the Empire--it's self-seeking politicians and self-indulgent masses, corruption, intrigue, morality and sense of duty rotten to the heart, decline of art into craft and science into dogma, strength sapped by a despair too pervasive for you to realize what it is..."
Pfui on secularism if that is what we get from it, decadence!
Ad astra! Sean
Cerdic had cause to regret underestimating Flandry... 8-).
That said, most people are more comfortable with some sort of religious faith. I find this weird, but it's incontestable.
Personally, I think it's a 'projection' -- human beings underwent hundreds of thousands of years of getting better and better at understanding each other and predicting each other's actions from a mental picture of their personality.
This led to projecting 'personality' onto nature in general.
However, it's a fact.
Of course secularism need not mean decadence any more than religion need mean burning heretics.
Consciousness emerged. Naturally selected organismic sensitivity to environmental alterations quantitatively increased systems until, in organisms with central nervous systems, it was qualitatively transformed into conscious sensation. When an organism dies, its consciousness ceases. Not knowing what caused rain, thunder etc, people projected conscious causes based on their own experience of consciously causing their bodies to move and to act on their environments.
A creator before the creation would be a self without other which is like a square without sides. (And we have discussed the Trinity more than once. Three persons without bodies would not be spatially distinct and therefore would not be other.)
In Hindu philosophy, the pronoun for the transcendent ultimate reality can be He, She or THAT. "He" (Vishnu etc) and "She" (Goddess) are anthropomorphic.
Delete "systems" between "increased" and "until" in the third sentence.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Ha, he certainly did, what you said about Cerdic vis a vis Flandry! I quoted him because Cerdic's comments, however biased, had enough truth to hit a nerve with Flandry.
Coming from you, being more or less called "weird" is not bad! (Smiles)
Religion makes sense because I believe God is real and actually cares about us. And that He can be known to some degree by logical reason as well as by His revelation of Himself to mankind thru Judaism/Christianity. While I regret that is not your belief, I also believe faith cannot/should not be coerced.
Paul: I do not believe in materialism, totally unconvincing.
Nor do I believe in any kind of monism, totally unconvincing. A "God" which is not a Being will never convince most people. I think both Stirling and I tried to point out the Persons of the Trinity answers your objection, with the Second Person assuming a human body/soul to His divinity, without confusion or admixing of "parts."
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I forgot to add it is my belief that secularism always end in a despair too pervasive for many to realize what it is. Secularism offers nothing that offers hope to something bigger than themselves to human beings. All secularism can offer is mere hedonistic abundance, and that is not going to be enough for more and more people. Secularism ends in decadence and intellectual anarchy and social chaos.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Materialism just means that being has become conscious which is what the evidence shows. It is "totally unconvincing" to you because it contradicts what you already believe - because of your upbringing? Same applies to monism. The latter just means that there is a single reality which becomes conscious of itself by appearing to itself as other and many. That is what we see all around us: apparent multiplicity; underlying unity.
The ultimate reality is being, not a being. That will convince most people when they see it properly.
I know you have SAID the Trinity answers the objection. The Trinity doctrine was formulated only because the Fourth Gospel deifies the Son and personifies the Spirit yet remains monotheist. 3 divine persons + 1 god = Trinity. It was not an answer to the objection that the creator before the creation would be a self without other. The Trinity is supposed to have preexisted the Incarnation.
Secularism does not always end in despair any more than religion always ends in sectarian hatred. Secularism does offer the whole universe and the whole of evolution, history and civilization which are certainly bigger than any individual human being. It offers knowledge and social interaction, not just hedonistic abundance. (Although certainly yes, technological abundance.) Thinking that something supernatural is necessary does not guarantee that the supernatural exists.
Decadence? Plenty of non-secularist societies have been decadent. Intellectual anarchy? Come of it. Secularists value logic and science. Social chaos? We have that right now thanks to our competitive economic system.
Paul.
Sean: Yeah, but I've been an atheist as far back as I remember, and I remember being six years old.
I envy people who were unbelievers from the start. I was indoctrinated, began to philosophize by rationalizing my received beliefs and took a very long time to come to my present philosophical and spiritual understanding.
Sean: "Secularism ends in decadence and intellectual anarchy and social chaos."
From what I have read about studies of such things, the more secular the society the lower the levels of such things as violent crime.
See eg. the work of Phil Zuckerman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zuckerman
That sounds like the opposite of 'social chaos' to me.
Kaor, Paul, Mr. Stirling, and Jim!
Paul: Refused, what you said about the Trinity.
Refused, what you said about "existence." Not going to be enough.
I see no need for secularism. What I had in mind was its use by dogmatists to attack and undermine ideas/institutions they don't like. It still ends only in despair, confusion, and the proliferation of many bad ideas. The stress you persist in placing on "abundance" is not convincing--it's always accompanied by hedonism/ennui if nothing bigger is offered. That will end in decadence.
Mr. Stirling: Then it would probably need something like Christ appearing to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus to change your mind! (Smiles)
Jim: I disagree. A big sign of decadence is a society no longer taking crime seriously enough to keep it firmly in check. Violent crimes of all kinds have become worse over the past 60 years or so precisely because its punishment has become less certain/consistent. E.g., the US state of New York recently abolished bail for all crimes. The predictable result has been a revolving door of thugs getting arrested, arraigned, and then released--with many committing more crimes. If they had to post bail they could not pay, they would have been imprisoned till trial and/or convicted/acquitted. That alone would have some effect controlling crime. A perfect example of bad ideas giving bad results. And an example of intellectual/social chaos and muddleheadedness.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: "Violent crimes of all kinds have become worse over the past 60 years or so"
Not according to this:
https://ourworldindata.org/us-crime-rates
In the US there was a peak in the 1990s with a decline since then.
I can try to find the data on crime rates vs rate of religious belief in given regions. As I recall scatter plots of crime rates (or a lot of other things generally considered to be bad eg: teen pregnancy) vs measures of religiosity (eg: fraction of population saying religion is important to them) generally show an upward slope.
Then there is argument over which way the causality goes. Maybe life being bad where you live makes people wish more for a god giving a good afterlife.
Sean,
Refused, what you said.
Paul.
Abundance is always accompanied by hedonism? We have not had socially controlled technological abundance yet.
Sean,
You see no need for secularism? So we should just assume the truth of supernaturalism?
Paul.
Dogmatists undermine and attack ideas and institutions they don't like?
No. Some people disagree with you.
Given the stress he was under, Saul seeing a blinding light and hearing a voice is not convincing.
If you just assume that your belief is true, then you automatically dismiss any contrary view as obviously (to you) untrue and therefore you do not really give any serious consideration to reasons or arguments in the matter. You are right. End of. With the result that the arguments just get repeated.
Sean, Please give serious consideration to my replies in the combox for the post, "Cold Wind And Doom." In particular, sceptics are NOT obliged to present arguments AGAINST the existence of God. This is a fundamental logical point.
I am certain that most theologians would recommend broad discussion of these issues, not embattled disagreement, refusal, rejection etc.
Kaor, Jim and Paul!
Jim. I still disagree, re crime. What happened in the 1990's in the US was a reaction against soft on crime politicians and judges. It led to the election of politicians like Guiliani and Bloomberg as mayors of cities like NY with no patience for PCness and coddling thugs. It also led to the enacting of tough on crime laws and harsher penalties for hoodlums. Unfortunately, that generation has now passed and many states/cities are again led by soft on crime idiots--with all too predictable results.
I don't understand that mention of "teen pregnancy" and "religiosity." I did not have those things in mind at all (albeit plenty of teenaged punks are thugs and hoodlums). This is what I had in mind, again quoting from Anderson's Foreword to SEVEN CONQUESTS: "Societies have generally found ways to keep murder, battery, rape, and riot within some bounds. When they fail to do so, throughout history it has been a symptom of their breakdown; they are soon replaced by new systems or whole new cultures virile enough to guarantee the ordinary peaceful person a measure of security in his daily life." You cannot have violence and crime at levels so high most people feel so endangered by that and decadence that breakdown becomes a real possibility. That's why any tolerable State will have leaders with no Tom fool illusions about crime/violence.
I can make my own recommendations, such as Ernest van den Haag's book PUNISHING CRIMINALS, where the author wrestles with crime and how best to handle it (hint: in ways I believe Anderson would mostly agree with). Another is D. Bodde and C. Morris' LAW IN IMPERIAL CHINA, a fascinating study of how the jurists of the Ch'ing Dynasty era (1644-1912) tried to handle crime. Not always in ways I would agree with, but at least they were trying.
Paul: Yes, it remains my firm belief abundance always eventually in ennui, hedonism, and decadence the people of a society mostly believe in something bigger than themselves, which secularism will not do.
Yes, secularist dogmatists have been attacking and maligning ideas and institutions they don't like since the French Revolution.
Since I don't believe in antisupernaturalism I am going to continue to believe the Risen Christ appeared to St. Paul. I don't believe in ideas/solutions you prefer because I believe them to have been amply shown to failures. No need to list them again. Why should I take seriously what dogmatic skeptics/atheists say about God if they can't if they can't defend their belief?
Correct, men like Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Ramon Lully, Dante Alighiri, to name a few from the Middle Ages. Or John Chapman, Raymond Brown, Jacques Maritain, Pope Benedict XVI, etc., from our times, could reply to the Modernist critique of the Scriptures or against Nominalism/materialism. Which John Wright has done at his own blog.
Ad astra! Sean
I garbled one of my above paragraphs, which I correct here: "Yes, it remains my firm belief abundance always eventually end in ennui, hedonism, and decadence if the people of a society no longer mostly believe in something bigger than themselves, which secularism will not do."
Sean
Sean,
Most sceptics and atheists are not dogmatic and can defend their belief! Believing that we can explain this world in terms of physics and of other sciences does not require us to disprove theism. You keep trying to turn the onus of proof (or disproof) the wrong way round.
Many people do not believe in antisupernaturalism as you put it but do not believe that the Risen Christ appeared to Saul/Paul. That is a whole 'nother proposition.
You come across as embattled and sometimes embittered instead of just being prepared to discuss these things.
Of course many people can reply to critiques of scripture and to materialism! What does that prove? It doesn't prove that they are right. Or that I am right. These debates continue with you and me on opposite sides. Obviously.
Yes, beliefs on both sides are firm! I firmly believe that, if and when we change society so that economic production is for need, not profit, then we collectively, democratically, and no longer as isolated, alienated, envious, atomic individuals, will be able to use advanced technology not to continue competing and destroying the environment but to produce more than everyone needs and to develop human potential to its fullest, including the potential of those with the highest IQ's and the lowest, if indeed scales like IQ continue to mean anything in such completely different conditions.
Your argument implies that, if you were able to end all poverty, you would not do so because abundance would make people decadent. People differ. If some become decadent, others will survive and thrive. Stop denigrating the whole of humanity.
Paul.
Sean,
Don't feel threatened by disagreement. It is a permanent part of life.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
On a matter of such importance as the existence or not as God, dogmatic atheists should be able to propose arguments for their belief at least as good as arguments for a First Cause, as proposed by philosophers like Aristotle. Here I mean the so-called New Atheists as distinct from those who feel no need to argue against belief in God.
I did not have non-Christian religious believers in mind, such as Zoroastrians or Sikhs.
That's exactly what I am doing, discussing.
Yes, all issues will have opposing arguments. But I believe some arguments are better or more convincing than others. I believe the Neo-Griesbachian hypothesis explains better how the Synoptic Gospels were composed, not the Q/Two Source theory.
I do not believe one bit some undefined change in society eliminating profit somehow still producing abundance. All you are going to get is a bureaucratic, dictatorial, one-party regime clumsily trying to run an economy from the top down. Absurdities like "...collectively, democratically" trying to run an economy means politicizing all decisions, arbitrarily setting quotas on what goods and services will be available. Failure, poverty, and tyranny are all you are going to get. With free enterprise you don't need something so clumsy. It works, socialism never has.
Human beings are "...alienated, envious", etc., because we are all of us innately flawed, imperfect, prone to strife, violence, etc. Any effort to set up a new regime ignoring that will fail, and fail catastrophically
Nor do I believe anything like "abundance" will, in the long run, satisfy most people. Nor can you can have just a little decadence because that is far more likely, given human nature/history, to keep spreading if nothing better and bigger takes its place.
Nor am I "denigrating" the human race, I'm being realistic. Your error is continuing to believe in some kind of impossible secularized Earthly Paradise. I believe in facing up to hard facts and accepting that NTTB is the best we can realistically hope for. That means the limited State, in whatever form, and free enterprise economics.
Note, I did not bring up these issues again, you did.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am responding here only to your opening sentence above. More might come later.
No, they should not. You still do not understand this basic logical principle. If I assert that there is intelligent life on Mars, then I am obliged to offer evidence. I am not entitled to challenge others to disprove my assertion! That is what your are asking for when you challenge atheists to prove their "belief." In fact, it is not a belief but an absence of belief. They have nothing to prove. You have.
You have invalidly added the adjective, "dogmatic," to the noun, "atheist."
The "First Cause" is not a good argument. We were told it at school. Even then, I knew that it was neither the only nor the best argument.
The argument:
Every event is caused.
An infinite regress is impossible.
Therefore, there was a first cause, which everyone calls God.
Comments:
Both premises must be proved.
"Every event is caused" is not a self-evident axiom but only a generalization from our experience which might be contradicted by further experience.
There are uncaused random or statistical events in quantum mechanics.
If every event is caused by an earlier event, then an infinite regress is not only possible but actual and there can have been no uncaused first event which in any case would be a past event, not an eternal person, therefore not God.
Paul.
"you are," not "your are."
Sean,
You are not just discussing. You are failing to let go of argumentative points which will therefore continue to repeat indefinitely.
Some arguments are more convincing to you!
I understand that most scholars go for Q. I am nowhere near enough qualified to judge.
"Some undefined change in society"! I have defined it over and over! Technology can produce abundance for all and need no longer be controlled by small minorities employing the majority and competing against each other to accumulate even more wealth to be kept out of the hands of the majority. Technology, whether controlled privately, bureaucratically or democratically, does not "somehow" produce wealth. It produces it. That is what it is designed and used to do. Of course you do not believe what I am saying. I really and honestly do not see the point of all this mere repetition.
Democracy is not absurd. Your opposition to its extension into the economy is. You are merely repeating points about "politicizing," tyranny, failure etc to which I have replied. At some point, we have to stop repeating.
"Socialism" in the sense that we are talking about here has been consistently, often violently, opposed - by people who then say that it has "failed" - and has not yet been tried in full. Advanced technology makes it not only more possible but urgently necessary.
We are not innately flawed, imperfect, prone to strife and violence. etc. The kind of society that you defend is prone to strife and violence which is why you try to lay the blame on the whole of humanity. We can and often do live harmoniously without needing coercion from a state.
Your concluding paragraphs are word for word repetition from many times before. I brought these issues up again? Did I? I have to be able to say what I think now and again without unleashing all this word for word repetition to which I make at great length exactly the same word for word replies. We can just note that we disagree and move on.
Paul.
You are not being realistic but denying change. I am not making an error but presenting an argument that you disagree with. You never argue on a level playing field.
What was impossible in the past can be possible in the future just as what is possible now was impossible in the past.
Free enterprise economics will be redundant when economic competition becomes unnecessary because so much is produced that it is no longer necessary to compete for anything. Then all that will be necessary will be the use of automatic systems and of agreed democratic procedures to manage universal distribution. We do not compete for air now and will not need to compete for anything material then.
Society has gone through fundamental changes: agricultural, mercantile, scientific, industrial and new technological revolutions and what I propose is just the next logical stage after all of those. Keeping massive productive forces in private hands perpetuates massive, life-threatening conflicts - the world that we inhabit now, where we need to worry about whether one man will unleash nukes.
My most fundamental point here is not that I (any more) expect you to accept any of this but just that I see no point in endlessly repeating it.
Please reread my previous replies on the casual use of that loaded word, "socialism."
Democracy does not mean everyone voting on every detail. Details can be delegated - accountably.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree with all the points you made, but I need more time to respond to some of them. I'll only say that I don't one bit your preferred definition of "socialism," because every single time that has been tried in any nation all we have seen is a bureaucratic one-party dictatorship incompetently trying to run things from the top down. I'm sticking to the definition that is accurate.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I agree with all the points I made but do we need to keep repeating ourselves?
Absurd. There are two kinds of "socialists." (i) Sure, some people think that they can electorally gain a majority in a parliament, then start legislating for their bureaucratic control of the economy and call this "socialist." They do not just fail. They are defeated by the powerful vested interests that really do control capitalist/market economies.
(ii) Many people - a well-based, intellectually coherent tradition - believe that mankind urgently needs to replace capitalism with democratic control of production for need, not profit. This also is called "socialism."
We are surely not arguing about how to define a word? If you insist that the word "socialism" applies only to (i) and not to (ii) above, then, for the sake of a philosophical discussion at least, I can accept that and we will have to agree on some other word for (ii).
Does that suggestion resolve this particular misunderstanding at least? If so, then we can return to more substantive issues. But do we need to do that either? We have been through all these issues about possible future societies repeatedly before.
Paul.
Sean,
You will not let this go. We need to. Surely you realize by now that, if we do not, then it will just repeat itself word for word forever?
Paul.
Sean: If Jesus appeared to me that way, I'd instantly convert and become a believer. Not going to doubt the evidence of my own senses.
Paul: I'll conclude that particular discussion. Summing up, I don't believe in your hopes about human beings, societies, economics, etc.
Mr. Stirling: And that was exactly how Thomas the Doubter reacted! He didn't believe the first reports about the risen Christ. It needed the personal appearance of Christ, with His gently ironic command to the Doubter to put his fingers/hand into His wounds before Thomas could believe and declare "My Lord and my God,"
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I'll conclude that particular discussion. Summing up, I believe in my hopes about human beings, societies, economics etc for the many reasons that I have repeatedly given. We have changed our environments, ourselves and our social relationships many times and now have the potential to make immensely greater changes in future.
The concluding passages of the Fourth Gospel are propaganda and apologetics, not history.
Paul.
Sean,
You give the impression of believing that the mere fact of your disagreement is in itself an additional argumentative point.
Paul.
Post a Comment