Ben Stein's remarks From CBS Sunday Morning

[Gtarzan81]

Ben Stein's remarks From CBS Sunday Morning:
The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees.. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christ mas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a crèche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different : This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it starte d when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully, Ben Stein

 

[suncloud]

its a very interesting standpoint, and unfortunately, Ben Stein is one of the most open minded celebrities. the issue of course is that as soon as someone says "Allah be with you" everyone becomes quiet. just as you can't go in front of a buddhist community and preach the words of Jesus.

praying to God, sending emails about God, even bringing him back in schools - all of that would be ok, so long as the name of God - whether you call him Buddah, Jesus, Allah, Brahma, etc. was left out of the equation as the Unitarian church does. when we started referencing HIM by name is when the smaller denominations pushed for an end of prayer in school. IMO.

why, oh why did i bother posting this? religious debates never go well.

/out

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Your commentary was very measured, Suncloud! I agree that many Christians would take umbrage to a Buddha being set-up during Christmas time!

 

[Rugger]

In before the 'tolerant' intolerants.

 

[Caferacer]

Remember ben stein is also the one who directed and wrote expelled, which is one the biggest pieces of trash I have ever watched.

Funny, our world is mostly christian, as is America, and yet the standpoint can still be taken that they are under attack and we are trying to get rid of god? It's a hypocritical standpoint.

Especially since in saying that there should be prayer in schools and reading the bible, it ignores all other religions. So lets read the bible, but what about the Koran afterwards? Maybe some Confucius then, followed by some tao te ching?

No? Then why are you complaining that there are no prayers and no bible readings in school.

 

[Tyler1]

I don't really care if they take God out of the schools or out of my government, but when they try to take the bible out of my sons hand or ask him to stop telling his friends about Jesus is when there is a freedom lost. I excpect the same treatment as any other religion in America.

I won't teach my sons to push out any religion or group that's different as his, as long s they aren't blowing up, attacking, hurting, or killing in Gods name. Yup, just like mine did back in the day.

 

[RobInKuwait]

I don't think I'd care if someone said "Allah be with you". Its definitely better to hear than "Allah will smite you" or something to that effect.

Its crazy how scared organizations are of offending anyone now. My office had an "end of year party". That used to be called a "holiday party". Before that it was a "Christmas party". Not sure if its good or bad, but its the way it is.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Remember ben stein is also the one who directed and wrote expelled, which is one the biggest pieces of trash I have ever watched.

Why didn't you like it? I am an atheist and definitely enjoyed watching it. It was good to hear about the holes in evolutionary theory that are never mentioned.

Funny, our world is mostly christian, as is America, and yet the standpoint can still be taken that they are under attack and we are trying to get rid of god? It's a hypocritical standpoint.

Actually, there are more Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims in the world than Christians.

Especially since in saying that there should be prayer in schools and reading the bible, it ignores all other religions. So lets read the bible, but what about the Koran afterwards? Maybe some Confucius then, followed by some tao te ching?

I don't think there are many advocating that anymore.

No? Then why are you complaining that there are no prayers and no bible readings in school.

I'm complaining because I'm paying for public schools through my taxes, but if I want to send my kids to private schools, I will get taxed on the income I spend on that as well. If private schools were a tax write off, I, and many other people could afford to send my kids there.

 

[Caferacer]

Why didn't you like it? I am an atheist and definitely enjoyed watching it. It was good to hear about the holes in evolutionary theory that are never mentioned.

Most of the 'holes' were based around a misunderstanding of probability and selectively picking quotes from those who advocate darwin. Read Eberts review of the movie; it's spot on.

Actually, there are more Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims in the world than Christians.

Fair enough. But christianity is still the leader in the US of A and yet the article makes it feel as if christianity is about to go extinct.

I don't think there are many advocating that anymore.

Really? Read the article. He speaks on it.

I'm complaining because I'm paying for public schools through my taxes, but if I want to send my kids to private schools, I will get taxed on the income I spend on that as well. If private schools were a tax write off, I, and many other people could afford to send my kids there.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my point at all. Hardcore bible thumping Christians disregarding other religions so they can feel hurt they no longer get to pray in schools versus you paying taxes.

Quoted.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Actually, there are more Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims in the world than Christians.

This statement's wording seems to imply they are working in concert [not your intention, I know]. Hinduism is a far too diverse and compartmentalized Philosophy to universally be deemed a religion - some aspects of Hindu Thought are somewhat areligious (Nyaya Vaishishaks, for example); following, Buddhism is not technically a 'religion' in the dogmatic, ritualistic sense either - much more a Philosophy. Anyway, I digress:

These three religions comprise a greater population than Christianity just barely...combined. Christianity comprises about 35% of the world's 'religious population' whereas the three aforemetioned religions comprise approximately 41%. Given the population dispersion, economic disparity and socio-economic quarrel in the regions of the world where such religions predominate, the 'World', in respects to power, [...principal to that of politically-economic power as we know it...] is 'Christian'. I believe this is what he was implying.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I don't really care if they take God out of the schools or out of my government, but when they try to take the bible out of my sons hand or ask him to stop telling his friends about Jesus is when there is a freedom lost. I excpect the same treatment as any other religion in America.

I won't teach my sons to push out any religion or group that's different as his, as long s they aren't blowing up, attacking, hurting, or killing in Gods name. Yup, just like mine did back in the day.

I think your son should stop telling his friends about Jesus, and hopefully his Jewish friends stop telling him about the Torah; his Muslim friends about Allah, Mohammed and the Quran; his Hindu friends about the Baghavad Gita and so forth.

If these deities are as powerfull as we are led to believe, it seems rather frivolous their presence need be 'revealed' by mortal constituents - whether through text, oratory, or otherwise. Bluntly: Any person should be allowed to come into any religion without somebody jamming it in their face.

Now some may say, "It is my free-right to preach God's word, and he would want me to spread his Gospel"; though, this is not my point. My point is that if 'god' is omnipotent, he is more than capable of doing his own spreading, therefore we [Christians, Muslims, Jews, and everybody included] should quit bothering each other.

I know full well that if my child was on the playground and one of his classmates began inundating him with passages from the Torah, Quran, Bible, or Upanishads, as anything but literature, I would be furious.

 

[RobInKuwait]

This statement's wording seems to imply they are working in concert [not your intention, I know]. Hinduism is a far too diverse and compartmentalized Philosophy to universally be deemed a religion - some aspects of Hindu Thought are somewhat areligious (Nyaya Vaishishaks, for example); following, Buddhism is not technically a 'religion' in the dogmatic, ritualistic sense either - much more a Philosophy. Anyway, I digress:

These three religions comprise a greater population than Christianity just barely...combined. Christianity comprises about 35% of the world's 'religious population' whereas the three aforemetioned religions comprise approximately 41%. Given the population dispersion, economic disparity and socio-economic quarrel in the regions of the world where such religions predominate, the 'World', in respects to power, [...principal to that of politically-economic power as we know it...] is 'Christian'. I believe this is what he was implying.

Wow, I just looked it up and you're right. I don't know why, but I thought that other religions each individually had a larger population.

By the way Mullet, I'm curious what you think about the Cato Institute's critique on Keynsianism. Its on another thread in politics.

Religion Adherents
Christianity 2.1 billion
Islam 1.5 billion
Secularism/irreligious/agnostic/atheism 1.1 billion
Hinduism 900 million
Chinese traditional religion 394 million
Buddhism 376 million
Primal-indigenous 300 million
African traditional/diasporic 100 million
Sikhism 23 million
Juche 19 million
Spiritism 15 million
Judaism 14 million
Bahá'í Faith 7 million
Jainism 4.2 million
Cao Dai 4 million
Zoroastrianism 2.6 million
Tenrikyo 2 million
Neo-Paganism 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism 800,000
Rastafarianism 600,000
Scientology 500,000

 

[RobInKuwait]

Why didn't you like it? I am an atheist and definitely enjoyed watching it. It was good to hear about the holes in evolutionary theory that are never mentioned.

Most of the 'holes' were based around a misunderstanding of probability and selectively picking quotes from those who advocate darwin. Read Eberts review of the movie; it's spot on.

The key thing that I took away from it that Ebert did not address is that in order to 'prove' evolutionary theory, one necessarily has to take a leap in logic. This was never taught to me, nor have I ever heard any critiques of evolutionary theory that mention this. I always like hearing dissenting opinions of ideas that are asserted to be infallible. It lets me get the whole picture.

I'm complaining because I'm paying for public schools through my taxes, but if I want to send my kids to private schools, I will get taxed on the income I spend on that as well. If private schools were a tax write off, I, and many other people could afford to send my kids there.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my point at all. Hardcore bible thumping Christians disregarding other religions so they can feel hurt they no longer get to pray in schools versus you paying taxes.

This has everything to do with it. Due to the fact that there is a serious financial penalty to seeking out any alternative to public education, "hardcore, bible thumping Christians" are seeking to bring their morality into public education. Make education a tax write off and see how often this happens.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

By the way Mullet, I'm curious what you think about the Cato Institute's critique on Keynsianism. Its on another thread in politics.

Link mon frere?

 

[RobInKuwait]

Link mon frere?

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/politics/111592-keynesian-economics-critique.html

 

[suncloud]

Make education a tax write off and see how often this happens.

allow me to digress for a moment. besides religion, the quality of education, student/teacher ration and the higher moral code enforced (religious i understand), all make private school a smarter and ultimately the best lucrative investment a parent can make.

sadly, even private schools in the US only teach as much, and sometimes less, than public schools in canada - i've done both

 

[Mulletsoldier]

sadly, even private schools in the US only teach as much, and sometimes less, than public schools in canada - i've done both

Booyakasha! Canadia FTW.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Booyakasha! Canadia FTW.

Blah, can't get it to post

 

[RobInKuwait]

allow me to digress for a moment. besides religion, the quality of education, student/teacher ration and the higher moral code enforced (religious i understand), all make private school a smarter and ultimately the best lucrative investment a parent can make.

sadly, even private schools in the US only teach as much, and sometimes less, than public schools in canada - i've done both

True. I'm not saying private schools are the end all, be all, but it seems unfair to me that parents who are not rich, are basically making a second house payment in order to get their kids the best possible education. In the end this can only help the country. Let them at least write it off on their tax returns.

 

[suncloud]

True. I'm not saying private schools are the end all, be all, but it seems unfair to me that parents who are not rich, are basically making a second house payment in order to get their kids the best possible education. In the end this can only help the country. Let them at least write it off on their tax returns.

you know, the lack of a good educational system in the US really bothers me. i did a study awhile back, and between NY, Florida, California, and Texas, that comprises almost 50% of the US economy. sadly, only one of those 4 states is even in the top 10 states if you rated them on education.

i remember moving to rio lindo adventist academy in healdsburg CA for 10th grade (second semester). they put me in algebra 1. i had just left sir winston churchill high schoool in vancouver BC, ad we were studying trigonometry.

private schools definitely give you an advantage in the united states, but the whole system has to be revamped from the ground up. why in the world to garbage truck drivers make 1.5-2 times what a teacher does? i mean, we're AT that point in the US where we have to take anybody that applies for the job as teacher - not the best candidate per se, but anyone who applies, because there's very few applicants for teaching jobs. i guarantee if you were to increase teacher wages to say 80k you'd be able to pick and choose the absolutely best candidates, the best morals, etc. it is one of our greatest shames as a nation that our educational system is as broken as it is. IMO...

 

[RobInKuwait]

you know, the lack of a good educational system in the US really bothers me. i did a study awhile back, and between NY, Florida, California, and Texas, that comprises almost 50% of the US economy. sadly, only one of those 4 states is even in the top 10 states if you rated them on education.

i remember moving to rio lindo adventist academy in healdsburg CA for 10th grade (second semester). they put me in algebra 1. i had just left sir winston churchill high schoool in vancouver BC, ad we were studying trigonometry.

private schools definitely give you an advantage in the united states, but the whole system has to be revamped from the ground up. why in the world to garbage truck drivers make 1.5-2 times what a teacher does? i mean, we're AT that point in the US where we have to take anybody that applies for the job as teacher - not the best candidate per se, but anyone who applies, because there's very few applicants for teaching jobs. i guarantee if you were to increase teacher wages to say 80k you'd be able to pick and choose the absolutely best candidates, the best morals, etc. it is one of our greatest shames as a nation that our educational system is as broken as it is. IMO...

That's not entirely true. A lot of teaching is about supply and demand. If you go to an inner city school, you find quite a few less applicants than you do in suburban schools. In addition, there is a surplus of Social Studies and English teachers, while there is a shortage of Math and Science teachers. I'd blame a lot of the teacher problems on the teacher's union. They make it hard to fire a bad teacher and make it so in many places, they CAN'T pay a Science and Math teacher more money. Its all about seniority.

Also, if its all about teacher's pay, tell me why on average private school teachers make significantly less money, but the education is still better than public school education?

What education needs is some competition.

 

[suncloud]

That's not entirely true. A lot of teaching is about supply and demand. If you go to an inner city school, you find quite a few less applicants than you do in suburban schools. In addition, there is a surplus of Social Studies and English teachers, while there is a shortage of Math and Science teachers. I'd blame a lot of the teacher problems on the teacher's union. They make it hard to fire a bad teacher and make it so in many places, they CAN'T pay a Science and Math teacher more money. Its all about seniority.

Also, if its all about teacher's pay, tell me why on average private school teachers make significantly less money, but the education is still better than public school education?

What education needs is some competition.

i agree that tenure doesn't help when it comes to replacing bad teachers. as far as money goes, i think it would bring in a stream of more intuitive teachers if they paid more. right now, the applicants for teachers are those that always wanted to teach. i respect anyone who follows their dreams, but just because you're living your dream does not make you the best applicant.

competition on an educational level realistically can only come from increasing their wages to get an influx of qualified individuals who have to try harder to maintain their job due to other qualified applicants ready to replace them. or an uber private school that caters to those with serious money to do the same thing. am i wrong in my assumption here?

 

[RobInKuwait]

i agree that tenure doesn't help when it comes to replacing bad teachers. as far as money goes, i think it would bring in a stream of more intuitive teachers if they paid more. right now, the applicants for teachers are those that always wanted to teach. i respect anyone who follows their dreams, but just because you're living your dream does not make you the best applicant.

I don't think that those are the only people that are being teachers. I think a lot of them want to be coaches or like being around kids (not in the perverted way). Lets not forget, summers, weekends, and holidays off, and not having to work excessively late. Plus the job security and pension are nice as well. Its really not a bad job and the pay is pretty damn high if you consider that you're off 2 months a year.

competition on an educational level realistically can only come from increasing their wages to get an influx of qualified individuals who have to try harder to maintain their job due to other qualified applicants ready to replace them. or an uber private school that caters to those with serious money to do the same thing. am i wrong in my assumption here?

I meant by competition that the customers/students are given choices. Right now, you have rich people that can go to private schools without breaking a sweat, and middle class people breaking their banks to go to private schools. If private schools were more accessible to middle America through tax breaks, public schools would be forced to step up their game accordingly. Right now, they're essentially enjoying a monopoly and not being forced to offer a high quality product.

 

[suncloud]

I meant by competition that the customers/students are given choices. Right now, you have rich people that can go to private schools without breaking a sweat, and middle class people breaking their banks to go to private schools. If private schools were more accessible to middle America through tax breaks, public schools would be forced to step up their game accordingly. Right now, they're essentially enjoying a monopoly and not being forced to offer a high quality product.

i would debate that, but i haven't seen other private schools - just the ones locally, which differ from that scenario. the closest private high school teaches latin, and other courses not offered in public high schools. i think that private schools should become more accessible though.

in addition, there have been studies where troubled kids go to public schools, where the only difference is the lack of sugar/caffeine on campus, and their focus is much better. looking around at the private schools in my area, they don't have soda machines either.

towards this end, not only IMO do schools have to step up education a notch, but parents have to realize that a higher standard for teachers also means that parents have to raise the bar as well.

 

[Tyler1]

I know full well that if my child was on the playground and one of his classmates began inundating him with passages from the Torah, Quran, Bible, or Upanishads, as anything but literature, I would be furious.

I heard a student trying to tell a classmate that they can't talk about God in school, I had to laugh at that one.

I'm sure it would be OK for your son to give his opinion on the subject of God without anybody telling him what he can and can't say.

What about religious freedom and free speech? Maybe a private school for your kids might be the best route, rather then trying to take away a freedom we have in America.

 

[dsade]

I heard a student trying to tell a classmate that they can't talk about God in school, I had to laugh at that one.

I'm sure it would be OK for your son to give his opinion on the subject of God without anybody telling him what he can and can't say.

What about religious freedom and free speech? Maybe a private school for your kids might be the best route, rather then trying to take away a freedom we have in America.

Recess would be fine for this, however during paid classroom time it would be a disruption.

/yes, been in classes with bible thumpers that self-righteously feel it is their right to clog up class time spewing jesus propaganda.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I'm sure it would be OK for your son to give his opinion on the subject of God without anybody telling him what he can and can't say.

The complete opposite. I would prefer my child make his/her own informed decisions at an age whereby his/her intuitive faculties have developed enough to make such decisions - i.e., I disagree with inundating impressionable young minds with 'religion'. As I said, it has always puzzled me why, if these deities are reality, why we are used as their medium. If the God of Abraham, or Brahman or whomever is Omnipotent, he will speak to my child personally without me facilitating that discussion - at that point, if he/she so chooses, I will drive them to the Church/Temple/Mosque of their choosing; before then, however, I would rather not propagate intellectual conformity and teach my child to suppress his/her natural skepticism [not insults, they are functions of religion].

What about religious freedom and free speech? Maybe a private school for your kids might be the best route, rather then trying to take away a freedom we have in America.

This is illogical, for a great number of reasons. While I recognize your appeal to the emotive capacity for patriotism, nothing in my statement threatened that act, and therefore your contention that I did [to disprove my argument] is wrong, brudda.

The arguments for and against Free Speech [Right to Free Assembly] often make very obvious 'Arguments from Accident' - that is, arguments which make categorical statements out of generalizations. In this case, the generalization is 'Free Speech' should always be protected whereas, in reality, there are exceptions to that rule [you cannot cry out 'Fire' in a crowded Theatre where there is no fire].

See, my argument stems much more from not inundating children with these religious concepts, as such is an unfair act, and somewhat contradictory to the supposed-Omnipotent nature of deities; you conflated that with my desire to limit Free-Speech, which was not my intention. Fair mistake!

:thumbsup:

 

[Tyler1]

Recess would be fine for this, however during paid classroom time it would be a disruption.

/yes, been in classes with bible thumpers that self-righteously feel it is their right to clog up class time spewing jesus propaganda.

It would be a disruption in the class. Just the same if somebody kept bringing up the opposite during a discussion on evolution. I taught science for a few years, it's going to happen. We have to remember we live in a free country. If somebody is going to turn the public school into an area where no other opinions can be shared, it would then lose the freedom part.

 

[RobInKuwait]

It would be a disruption in the class. Just the same if somebody kept bringing up the opposite during a discussion on evolution. I taught science for a few years, it's going to happen. We have to remember we live in a free country. If somebody is going to turn the public school into an area where no other opinions can be shared, it would then lose the freedom part.

This is America, everybody has the right to opinions.....as long as they're PC. :thumbsup:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

This is America, everybody has the right to opinions.....as long as they're PC. :thumbsup:

Question:

Why is that one has the option to place their child in a Religious School, the admission thereto contingent on the child being of that religion yet, when I suggest I wish for my [hypothetical] child to not be inundated with religion, I am encroaching on Free Speech?

Why is suggesting I prefer my child to be in an Atheistic/Agnostic/Coporealistic/Deistic school any different?

Answer:

It is not!

A fundamental predication of Religious Schools is that the doctrine and Theism thereof be an integral part of the scholastic experience; not only forming part of the curricula of that school, but being a lasting part of the Teacher-Student bond. I.e., it is reasonable to assume that the propagation of the associated Theism of that school will be a fundamental component of the child's day-to-day life!

To suggest I wish for the same experience for my child is not diminishing Free Speech as was hastily suggested, but rather, wishing for the same treatment. I have become somewhat weary of this notion that North America is a 'secular society' - a secular society is an ostensibly areligious society. Agnostics/Atheists/Corporealists/Deists and derivatives thereof comprise 16% of the population of N.A., Why is it that there are schools for Hebrews, and none for Atheists? Christians and not Atheists? Seems the double standard is not being committed by me.

 

[RobInKuwait]

I'm not certain how you reacted to my comment in this way. I was just saying that in America everyone is always defending freedom of speech until what they are saying is not in the realm of the PC.

Question:

Why is that one has the option to place their child in a Religious School, the admission thereto contingent on the child being of that religion yet,

This is not a requirement in most private schools as far as I've heard. Its generally assumed that in a Catholic School that the majority of the students are Catholic, but I've never heard of that being a requirement (though it wouldn't shock me if this practice existed)

when I suggest I wish for my [hypothetical] child to not be inundated with religion, I am encroaching on Free Speech?

I would have issue with teachers talking to students about religion, but regulating what students say to one another, with the exception of the vulgar, sounds alarmingly like policing ideas. Not ideal in an institution of learning.

Why is suggesting I prefer my child to be in an Atheistic/Agnostic/Coporealistic/Deistic school any different?

I'd say that's what a public school is. You'd have an uphill battle arguing that public schools are a tool of any religion today other than the religion of standardized tests.

A fundamental predication of Religious Schools is that the doctrine and Theism thereof be an integral part of the scholastic experience; not only forming part of the curricula of that school, but being a lasting part of the Teacher-Student bond. I.e., it is reasonable to assume that the propagation of the associated Theism of that school will be a fundamental component of the child's day-to-day life!

To suggest I wish for the same experience for my child is not diminishing Free Speech as was hastily suggested, but rather, wishing for the same treatment. I have become somewhat weary of this notion that North America is a 'secular society' - a secular society is an ostensibly areligious society. Agnostics/Atheists/Corporealists/Deists and derivatives thereof comprise 16% of the population of N.A., Why is it that there are schools for Hebrews, and none for Atheists? Christians and not Atheists? Seems the double standard is not being committed by me.

I'm not really following your argument....and I think you must have responded to me when you meant to respond to somebody else. I believe there are not many private non-religious schools because the demand for them is low. Catholic Schools tend to offer a good products for Catholics and non-Catholics alike, so there really isn't a major demand outside of that. I believe if there were tax breaks for money spent on private schools there would be a proliferation in new schools of all kinds, but considering we have a Democratic congress whose in bed with the Teacher's Union, that would never get passed, so thats nothing we have to worry about the next 2 years.

The options are the same: fleece yourself to send your kids to private schools or settle for public schools.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I'm not certain how you reacted to my comment in this way. I was just saying that in America everyone is always defending freedom of speech until what they are saying is not in the realm of the PC.

No reaction, just stirring debate!

This is not a requirement in most private schools as far as I've heard. Its generally assumed that in a Catholic School that the majority of the students are Catholic, but I've never heard of that being a requirement (though it wouldn't shock me if this practice existed)

There exists such schools; and, even if there were not, most Muslims will not attend Private Christian schools and vice versa - the requirement, even if not of rational-legal form, is of a social one.

I would have issue with teachers talking to students about religion, but regulating what students say to one another, with the exception of the vulgar, sounds alarmingly like policing ideas. Not ideal in an institution of learning.

As I said, the religious experience is a precipitating factor to why parents choose these private institutions. I also did not insist on 'policing'; you have may missed my point.

I'd say that's what a public school is. You'd have an uphill battle arguing that public schools are a tool of any religion today other than the religion of standardized tests.

And I said as such, where? Is Atheism/Agnosticism part of the curricula? Is an open-challenge to Religious beliefs part of the curricula? Of course not. Your responses have all glossed over the concept of specificity [i.e., specifically areligious and/or irreligious schools]. Again, this concept of a 'secular society' is very funny!

I'm not really following your argument

I know!

I believe there are not many private non-religious schools because the demand for them is low.

Is it? And the demand for [say] Judaic schools are proportionately higher despite comprising far less of the total N.A., population?

Catholic Schools tend to offer a good products for Catholics and non-Catholics alike, so there really isn't a major demand outside of that.

Catholic Schools are the only private districts? Of course not. Motions are passing through the Ontario Parliament to introduce legislature sanctioning Islamic Schools, and Judaic Private Schools are common - again, I think you may have missed the underlying Philosophical question! Reread the initial question, considering the Epistemological significance of offering certain-Minorities 'religious freedom', and then denying Atheists the same freedom (exemplified by Tyler's comments).

I meant to reply to your comment directly. You said all have the right to opinions, and I offered you an exception to that [lack of existence for Pro-Atheistic schools].

 

[RobInKuwait]

No reaction, just stirring debate!

I think stirring is the wrong word....I think you're digging up a debate! I feel like I'm being sucked into this one against my will. All I want is a tax write off for paying for private schooling.

I think you just like winning arguments and are picking a fight you know you can win. :think:

There exists such schools; and, even if there were not, most Muslims will not attend Private Christian schools and vice versa - the requirement, even if not of rational-legal form, is of a social one.

Agreed. Just like non-Muslims don't normally attend Muslim fundamentalist schools. (not making an Obama comment here....that would be wrong )

I will say, that just because a group went out of their way to create their own school, doesn't mean that every group that did not is being victimized or mistreated. A private school is akin to a private company...built on the sweat of motivated institutions and individuals.

As I said, the religious experience is a precipitating factor to why parents choose these private institutions. I also did not insist on 'policing'; you have may missed my point.

I think you missed my point. There is a difference between not teaching religion, and creating a hostile environment for religion. Let the religious kid ask the question during your evolution class. Don't belittle him, just tell him that this is what he is being tested on, and if he wants an A he'd better learn it.

And I said as such, where? Is Atheism/Agnosticism part of the curricula? Is an open-challenge to Religious beliefs part of the curricula? Of course not. Your responses have all glossed over the concept of specificity [i.e., specifically areligious and/or irreligious schools]. Again, this concept of a 'secular society' is very funny!

Well, show me where religious beliefs are part of the curricula. Its hard to teach a negative when the positive is not being taught. I'm an Atheist, but I don't think its something that anyone needs to be taught in high school. There's plenty of time for that in college philosophy classes. As for Agnosticism....how much is there to learning that you don't know what to believe?

Is it? And the demand for [say] Judaic schools are proportionately higher despite comprising far less of the total N.A., population?

My thinking is that if the demand was high, there would already be schools.

Catholic Schools are the only private districts? Of course not. Motions are passing through the Ontario Parliament to introduce legislature sanctioning Islamic Schools, and Judaic Private Schools are common - again, I think you may have missed the underlying Philosophical question! Reread the initial question, considering the Epistemological significance of offering certain-Minorities 'religious freedom', and then denying Atheists the same freedom (exemplified by Tyler's comments).

That's wrong. I didn't really get into the Ben Stein argument too much, I didn't realize he was saying that.

I meant to reply to your comment directly. You said all have the right to opinions, and I offered you an exception to that [lack of existence for Pro-Atheistic schools].

Create one!

I just think Pro-Atheistic is like pro-nothing. Atheism isn't a religion, its the absence of religion. I really don't understand militant Atheism. You (the Atheist, not you Mullet) don't believe in god......that's great. What are you going to teach me then......Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic.....obviously not Religion....

Atheism doesn't define my beliefs, at best it may help describe them.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I think you missed my point. There is a difference between not teaching religion, and creating a hostile environment for religion. Let the religious kid ask the question during your evolution class. Don't belittle him, just tell him that this is what he is being tested on, and if he wants an A he'd better learn it.

And I said hostile...where? Again, being Pro-Atheistic or areligious does not necessarily connote a demonstrative hostility to Religion, just a lack of acceptance. I assume you feel all religious individuals are hostile towards Atheists/Agnostics.

Well, show me where religious beliefs are part of the curricula. Its hard to teach a negative when the positive is not being taught. I'm an Atheist, but I don't think its something that anyone needs to be taught in high school. There's plenty of time for that in college philosophy classes. As for Agnosticism....how much is there to learning that you don't know what to believe?

I was in Catholic School [Public Catholic] and I had one hour of Religion [Christian Religion] classes daily. I think you may need to brush up on your Private-District-School knowledge, Rob!

Agnostic is also not an absence of a belief, as you are positioning here; it is an affirmative, deistic-positivist Epistemological position. Common mistake, though!

My thinking is that if the demand was high, there would already be schools.

Really? As all demands by minority groups are met, correct?

I just think Pro-Atheistic is like pro-nothing. Atheism isn't a religion, its the absence of religion. I really don't understand militant Atheism. You (the Atheist, not you Mullet) don't believe in god......that's great. What are you going to teach me then......Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic.....obviously not Religion....

Atheism doesn't define my beliefs, at best it may help describe them

You need to do some serious reading into the Epistemologies of Corporealism/Positivism/Deism/Atheism and Agnosticism, Rob! My Epistemology Professors are cringing to hear you say Atheism is a lack of a position!

 

[RobInKuwait]

And I said hostile...where? Again, being Pro-Atheistic or areligious does not necessarily connote a demonstrative hostility to Religion, just a lack of acceptance. I assume you feel all religious individuals are hostile towards Atheists/Agnostics.

I didn't say you were hostile, I was clarifying my position. I have no issue and would encourage an areligious attitude in PUBLIC schools. Yes, I'd say all religious individuals are hostile toward Atheists. I'd say they have a soft spot towards Agnostics however. I think Agnosticism is an Atheist without the balls to accept or reject Pascal's Gambit.

I was in Catholic School [Public Catholic] and I had one hour of Religion [Christian Religion] classes daily. I think you may need to brush up on your Private-District-School knowledge, Rob!

I guess thats a Canada thing. In the United States there are no religious Public Schools. Religion was not offered at my high school.

Agnostic is also not an absence of a belief, as you are positioning here; it is an affirmative, deistic-positivist Epistemological position. Common mistake, though!

So they believe in a higher power, just don't know what it is?

Really? As all demands by minority groups are met, correct?

There seems to be that expectation in America.

Private schools are a free market question.

You need to do some serious reading into the Epistemologies of Corporealism/Positivism/Deism/Atheism and Agnosticism, Rob! My Epistemology Professors are cringing to hear you say Atheism is a lack of a position!

Atheism is a position, its the position that someone doesn't believe in a higher power, nothing more in my eyes.

My Atheism may not equal someone else's Atheism. Atheism in itself just means an individual does not believe in a god or higher power. Saying that one is Atheist begs the question....And? A religion brings with it many implicit philosophical positions and a belief structures. Atheism brings with it the lack of a belief in god.

I will put the caveat that I may not be an "educated Atheist", I'm not up on "current Atheist thought", "Atheist philosophy" and all the meaning others Atheists place on their lack of belief in god. I will also say, that I think putting any unifying theme behind a negative belief is pretty silly.

Atheism is not the basis or endpoint of my epistomological beliefs, its a necessary byproduct.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I didn't say you were hostile, I was clarifying my position. I have no issue and would encourage an areligious attitude in PUBLIC schools.

I have been speaking about Private schools this entire time - that was the point!

Yes, I'd say all religious individuals are hostile toward Atheists. I'd say they have a soft spot towards Agnostics however. I think Agnosticism is an Atheist without the balls to accept or reject Pascal's Gambit.

David Hume would disagree with you; so would Bertrand Russell. You should [serious comment] Google Agnosticism.

I guess thats a Canada thing. In the United States there are no religious Public Schools. Religion was not offered at my high school.

Yes, they do; nevertheless though, I have been speaking about Private schools this entire time.

So they believe in a higher power, just don't know what it is?

No, Agnosticism [Philosophically speaking] is a certain skeptical analysis of the possible truth-value of categorical statements on the Universe. For example, a Christian says, "All murder is bad, based on Gospel" or "All people have an afterlife", and bases both of those statements on a Universal predication of truth-value - i.e., a Deity.

An Agnostic, on the other hand, does not make categorical statements based on the Universe but rather make's statements based on a certain empirical-skepticism, analyzing the truth value of a statement based on the human's capacity for knowledge - i.e., if God is the ultimate reality, then it is beyond the capacity of a human-agent to know anything in its certainty as we must mediate all things through our intellectual faculties.

In most senses the term "I believe..." is meant to imply a lack of direct experiential knowledge of a phenomenon, and a claim to knowledge based on an analysis of available evidence: "I believe the Titanic was struck by an iceberg". Religious statements are the only time we allow people to conflate "I believe..." statements with "I know..." statements, a priori of the thing they claim to know!

There seems to be that expectation in America.

Private schools are a free market question.

Are they? As you have an uncanny ability to relate all social phenomenon [maybe inappropriately] to the 'Free Market' [which we established does not, never has, and cannot exist] I am interested to hear your explanation.

Atheism is a position, its the position that someone doesn't believe in a higher power, nothing more in my eyes.

I see, so you would characterize Kant, Hegel, Marx, Russell, Nietzsche, and the Philosophies thereof, as "somebody who does not believe in a higher power, nothing more"? We may have to rewrite the past 400 years of Theistic criticism based on your thoughts, then.

My Atheism may not equal someone else's Atheism. Atheism in itself just means an individual does not believe in a god or higher power. Saying that one is Atheist begs the question....And? A religion brings with it many implicit philosophical positions and a belief structures. Atheism brings with it the lack of a belief in god.

I see. So if an individual [say] posits all knowable reality as a negative determination of Nothingness, to negate itself into Being and ultimately transcend into the Absolute, you would say that is just a non-belief in a Christian power, and nothing more?

There are so very many diverse Ontological positions which do not posit a 'god' which are beyond how horribly you are simplifying them here. I am not attempting to be rude, but literally almost every great Philosopher since the Enlightenment has been Atheistic, and you are butchering their work by reducing Atheism to a negation. Very disappointing.

I will put the caveat that I may not be an "educated Atheist", I'm not up on "current Atheist thought", "Atheist philosophy" and all the meaning others Atheists place on their lack of belief in god. I will also say, that I think putting any unifying theme behind a negative belief is pretty silly.

Allow me to clarify. You are making a common conflation between the terms 'dis...' and 'lack of...' [belief]. For example, lack of belief implies a certain apathy or indifference, which is a more apt description for an individual's position on [say] the Loch Ness Monster. I have a lack of belief for the Loch Ness Monster, but such absence of belief [as you put it] is not a constituting factor of my Epistemology, it is a mere disregard.

Disbelief, on the other hand, is an active, affirmative position. The difference between these terms is apparent when reviewing their etymology:


disbelief

noun
1. doubt about the truth of something
2. a rejection of belief

Now, Atheism is a disbelief in Theism - a critical stance on the truth value of the statements produced as a result of Theism [i.e., God is real and loves us all] and the positioning that only simple Universal statements may be made [i.e., all squares have four sides]. It is not an absence of belief, but the existence of a counterposition; possibly an Idealist-Realist conceptualization of reality as a constantly dialectic state, seeking towards ultimate reconciliation with an Absolute Consciousness; possibly a materialist conceptualization of reality positing that this reality is the reality.

When one says 'Atheist' in respects to the 15-year old who dislikes church, your definition is valid; however, and as I said, the past 300 years of Philosophical thought has been centered around Atheistic beliefs. However, I am sure you are positing something novel here! [just kidding]

Before you imply, I do implore you to Google these terms! Atheism/Agnosticism [I am being serious] does not mean what you think it means - seriously!

 

[RobInKuwait]

I have been speaking about Private schools this entire time - that was the point!

Misunderstanding. I've been talking about public schools the entire time.

David Hume would disagree with you; so would Bertrand Russell. You should [serious comment] Google Agnosticism.

Googled it and read up on it. I still feel the same way about Agnosticism. I understand if you don't want to be Atheist or religious....but to act like blissful ignorance is a respectable position just seems asinine to me. I'm sure you disagree. I remember reading Hume in college and constantly saying to my professor that I can't see where this guy is coming from. Not a fan.

Yes, they do; nevertheless though, I have been speaking about Private schools this entire time.

My public high school did not have a religion class. Like I said though, misunderstanding.

No, Agnosticism [Philosophically speaking] is a certain skeptical analysis of the possible truth-value of categorical statements on the Universe. For example, a Christian says, "All murder is bad, based on Gospel" or "All people have an afterlife", and bases both of those statements on a Universal predication of truth-value - i.e., a Deity.

An Agnostic, on the other hand, does not make categorical statements based on the Universe but rather make's statements based on a certain empirical-skepticism, analyzing the truth value of a statement based on the human's capacity for knowledge - i.e., if God is the ultimate reality, then it is beyond the capacity of a human-agent to know anything in its certainty as we must mediate all things through our intellectual faculties.

So basically they're a relativist....if there's universal truth out there, its above their head?

In most senses the term "I believe..." is meant to imply a lack of direct experiential knowledge of a phenomenon, and a claim to knowledge based on an analysis of available evidence: "I believe the Titanic was struck by an iceberg". Religious statements are the only time we allow people to conflate "I believe..." statements with "I know..." statements, a priori of the thing they claim to know!

Right, one of the definitions of belief is knowledge without understanding I believe

Are they? As you have an uncanny ability to relate all social phenomenon [maybe inappropriately] to the 'Free Market' [which we established does not, never has, and cannot exist] I am interested to hear your explanation.

Private schools are enterprises independent of the state that rely on supply and demand. Maybe free market is an exaggeration, but they're closer than any public school is to the free market.

I see, so you would characterize Kant, Hegel, Marx, Russell, Nietzsche, and the Philosophies thereof, as "somebody who does not believe in a higher power, nothing more"? We may have to rewrite the past 400 years of Theistic criticism based on your thoughts, then.

Not at all. Would you say that the term Atheist succinctly captures their philosophies? That was the point I was attempting to make.

I see. So if an individual [say] posits all knowable reality as a negative determination of Nothingness, to negate itself into Being and ultimately transcend into the Absolute, you would say that is just a non-belief in a Christian power, and nothing more?

There are so very many diverse Ontological positions which do not posit a 'god' which are beyond how horribly you are simplifying them here. I am not attempting to be rude, but literally almost every great Philosopher since the Enlightenment has been Atheistic, and you are butchering their work by reducing Atheism to a negation. Very disappointing.

My understanding of the term Atheism is not gibing with yours. Using the definition below:

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods (my definition), or the rejection of theism(your definition). It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism.

Allow me to clarify. You are making a common conflation between the terms 'dis...' and 'lack of...' [belief]. For example, lack of belief implies a certain apathy or indifference, which is a more apt description for an individual's position on [say] the Loch Ness Monster. I have a lack of belief for the Loch Ness Monster, but such absence of belief [as you put it] is not a constituting factor of my Epistemology, it is a mere disregard.

Disbelief, on the other hand, is an active, affirmative position. The difference between these terms is apparent when reviewing their etymology:


disbelief

noun
1. doubt about the truth of something
2. a rejection of belief

Now, Atheism is a disbelief in Theism - a critical stance on the truth value of the statements produced as a result of Theism [i.e., God is real and loves us all] and the positioning that only simple Universal statements may be made [i.e., all squares have four sides]. It is not an absence of belief, but the existence of a counterposition; possibly an Idealist-Realist conceptualization of reality as a constantly dialectic state, seeking towards ultimate reconciliation with an Absolute Consciousness; possibly a materialist conceptualization of reality positing that this reality is the reality.

When one says 'Atheist' in respects to the 15-year old who dislikes church, your definition is valid; however, and as I said, the past 300 years of Philosophical thought has been centered around Atheistic beliefs. However, I am sure you are positing something novel here! [just kidding]

Before you imply, I do implore you to Google these terms! Atheism/Agnosticism [I am being serious] does not mean what you think it means - seriously!

I see your point. I think my lack of understanding of how you defined Atheism is the root of our differences.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Googled it and read up on it. I still feel the same way about Agnosticism. I understand if you don't want to be Atheist or religious....but to act like blissful ignorance is a respectable position just seems asinine to me. I'm sure you disagree. I remember reading Hume in college and constantly saying to my professor that I can't see where this guy is coming from. Not a fan.

Agnosticism has as much to do with verifiability of truth-value statements as it does religion. I think that is the portion you may be glossing over in your analysis.

My public high school did not have a religion class. Like I said though, misunderstanding.

It was horrid, trust me.

So basically they're a relativist....if there's universal truth out there, its above their head?

Np, no, nothing of the sort. 'Above their head' implies that the ability exists, but that this particular individual does not possess it. My point centers around the nature of language itself and its interplay wiht religion.

Religious statements [not merely referring to sentences, but religion-as-cultural-text - i.e., the broader 'message' of religion] are often categorical. Categorical statements are statements which make claim to universal truth-value; or in other words, statements which are true in all instances. In this way, categorical statements are very transitive, insofar as claiming the relation R to all subsets of x.

An example would be Socrates' statement: All men or mortal. This is categorical as it has a universal truth-value [All men are in fact mortal] and it is transitive [it applies the relation R {mortality} to all subsets of x {men}]. We say such categorical statements are valid only in instances where the definition of the word necessitates an indexical statement. For example, "All squares have four sides" is universal, for every square has four sides, and if it does not, it is not a square - therefore the categorical statements, "All squares have four sides" is valid.

The issue here is verifiability. We can make the statement, "All squares have four sides" without experiencing every square, because squares by definition have four sides; statements not of this kind [trivial or definitive statements] are all belief statements, tenured by a certain amount of doubt. For example, in saying "The Sun will rise tomorrow", one really means to say, "I believe the Sun will rise tomorrow because it has risen hundreds of billions of times previously, and I have no reason to believe it will not". While it is almost undoubtable the Sun will rise, a categorical statement may not be made about it because it could have blown up millions of years ago and will just reach us now.

And this is the issue Agnosticism takes with Theism: Theistic statements are almost exclusively categorical, and not tenured by the necessary doubt of an Agnostic. You see, while you are reducing Agnosticism/Atheism to nothing more than an absence of a belief, or determination of negativity towards Theism, they are much more complex positions; in reality, they hinge up truth-value statements and verifiability.

Private schools are enterprises independent of the state that rely on supply and demand. Maybe free market is an exaggeration, but they're closer than any public school is to the free market.

Fair enough. Though, I think Atheistic schools do not exist for more reasons than that [keeping in mind I said the Lord's Prayer every day in Elementary School] for more reasons than that.

Not at all. Would you say that the term Atheist succinctly captures their philosophies? That was the point I was attempting to make.

No, but I do not think reducing the term Atheist to lack of belief is correct, either.

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods (my definition), or the rejection of theism (your definition). It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism.

You took neither of the above positions, but took the one I bolded.

I see your point. I think my lack of understanding of how you defined Atheism is the root of our differences.

As with most of our discussions, I take the classically-defined, Philosophical definition of these terms, which have been admittedly muddied about throughout history.

 

[RobInKuwait]

As with most of our discussions, I take the classically-defined, Philosophical definition of these terms, which have been admittedly muddied about throughout history.

And as with most our discussion, I take the muddied definition of terms. :head:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Hah!

What are your thoughts on the 'categorical explanation', Rob? Clarify Agnosticism at all?

 

[RobInKuwait]

Hah!

What are your thoughts on the 'categorical explanation', Rob? Clarify Agnosticism at all?

It clarified it...but I still have a fundamental distaste for agnosticism in general.

Philosophy, to me, is about developing for one's self a fundamental understanding of reality. If I read what you're saying correctly, Agnosticism states that is impossible, unreachable, unknowable.... for whatever reason. Its completely counterintuitive to me. In my mind, Agnosticism turns philosophy into a masturbatory exercise in futility.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

It clarified it...but I still have a fundamental distaste for agnosticism in general.

Philosophy, to me, is about developing for one's self a fundamental understanding of reality. If I read what you're saying correctly, Agnosticism states that is impossible, unreachable, unknowable.... for whatever reason. Its completely counterintuitive to me. In my mind, Agnosticism turns philosophy into a masturbatory exercise in futility.

I am searching for a way to reduce this to a quick analogy, but it is difficult. There is a 'thing' you are missing, that is fundamental to the interpretation.

You are making a colloquial relation to a Philosophical problematic. In this case, you are blurring the discrimination between phenomena and noumena - a distinction Kant made in a Critique of Pure Reason.

Phenomena are things-as-they-seem, or in other words, things as we may see them; noumena are things-in-themselves, or in other words, things as they are in themselves.

For example, Gravity, while an objective phenomenon [experienced relatively equally by all Agents] is still a phenomenon - but why? Because you still have knowledge of Gravity, and therefore your experience of Gravity is tempered by that conceptual knowledge: Making your experience different than all others, and not a direct access.

Religion on the other hand, claims direct access to objects-in-themselves via a divine power and thereby produces categorical statements about reality based on that belief; Agnosticism challenges the ability for any statement to be categorical [aside from trivial statements]. As I said, it is much more of a analysis of truth-value rather than a limiting Epistemology as you are understanding.

What you are missing, I feel, is that you are conflating the phenomena-noumena distinction as one of unreal vs., real, whereas that is not the case. The fact that we may only experience phenomena does not make them any less real, or less valid. We simply may only experience these phenomenon subjectively as a function of the intuitive mechanisms of the human. Simply all experience is mediated through thought - even the most objective [Time, Gravity and so forth].

 

[RobInKuwait]

I am searching for a way to reduce this to a quick analogy, but it is difficult. There is a 'thing' you are missing, that is fundamental to the interpretation.

You are making a colloquial relation to a Philosophical problematic. In this case, you are blurring the discrimination between phenomena and noumena - a distinction Kant made in a Critique of Pure Reason.

Phenomena are things-as-they-seem, or in other words, things as we may see them; noumena are things-in-themselves, or in other words, things as they are in themselves.

For example, Gravity, while an objective phenomenon [experienced relatively equally by all Agents] is still a phenomenon - but why? Because you still have knowledge of Gravity, and therefore your experience of Gravity is tempered by that conceptual knowledge: Making your experience different than all others, and not a direct access.

phenomena and noumena....so basically, if I understand what you are saying, this is perceptions versus objective reality?

Religion on the other hand, claims direct access to objects-in-themselves via a divine power and thereby produces categorical statements about reality based on that belief; Agnosticism challenges the ability for any statement to be categorical [aside from trivial statements]. As I said, it is much more of a analysis of truth-value rather than a limiting Epistemology as you are understanding.

What you are missing, I feel, is that you are conflating the phenomena-noumena distinction as one of unreal vs., real, whereas that is not the case. The fact that we may only experience phenomena does not make them any less real, or less valid. We simply may only experience these phenomenon subjectively as a function of the intuitive mechanisms of the human. Simply all experience is mediated through thought - even the most objective [Time, Gravity and so forth].

I think I understand it.....barely......its just so foreign to me. It makes no sense. I remember having this same feeling of my brain stretching in college philosophy when I was trying to understand Hume.

To me, this philosophy undermines the survival mechanisms inherent to humankind. A human being's perceptions are his reality, whether true or not. If you don't base your thoughts and paradigms off of your senses, why bother? Reason is what keeps man alive and is his strongest facility. Undermining reason is akin to philosophical suicide.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

phenomena and noumena....so basically, if I understand what you are saying, this is perceptions versus objective reality?

In a sense; but again, the term perceptions is too psychological in this sense. I will explain below.

To me, this philosophy undermines the survival mechanisms inherent to humankind. A human being's perceptions are his reality, whether true or not. If you don't base your thoughts and paradigms off of your senses, why bother? Reason is what keeps man alive and is his strongest facility. Undermining reason is akin to philosophical suicide.

Again, in reducing this distinction psychologically you may be misunderstanding its purpose; rather than be a negation to reason, this Philosophy is a determination of reason.

I thought of an analogy this morning that may work:

Consider your brain as a filter, and the sense-datum [sights, sounds, knowledge and so forth] as water: Anything which may potentially become 'your thoughts' must pass through the filter, unwittingly and unbeknownst to you. The filter itself is constructed of your conceptual knowledge and social input. In this sense, the exact moment you interact with a piece of sense-datum it becomes a phenomenon because it has passed through your filter [your filter being different than everybody else's is what makes it subjective]. For example, the sense-data of Time passes through your filter, and interacts with your conceptual knowledge of Time, Space, Gravity and so forth - the characteristics of your filter [Kant called that Faculties] are then imputed to the sense-datum, making them subjective [but still very real].

In this sense, we do not say that thoughts, feelings, and perceptions are irrelevant, invalid, and untruthful, but quite the opposite; as I said, you are conflating noumena v., phenomena to real v., unreal, when that is not the case!

While this distinction has no bearing on day-to-day life - whether or not you are experiencing a thing-as-it-seems or a thing-in-itself, you are still encountering it - it was made to deconstruct the nature of Truth. I.e.,) All categorical statements are assumed false [unless trivial] because the only statements humans may unequivocally make are "I believe..." statements. Simply because all experience must be corporeal, does not make unreal or any less real than a noumena.

Obviously, though, such idealist conceptualizations have a few glaring issues; namely, one must ask, "If such a distinction between the knowable and unknowable exists, how did the Philosopher make that discrimination without having access to both sides?"

 

[RobInKuwait]

In a sense; but again, the term perceptions is too psychological in this sense. I will explain below.



Again, in reducing this distinction psychologically you may be misunderstanding its purpose; rather than be a negation to reason, this Philosophy is a determination of reason.

I thought of an analogy this morning that may work:

Consider your brain as a filter, and the sense-datum [sights, sounds, knowledge and so forth] as water: Anything which may potentially become 'your thoughts' must pass through the filter, unwittingly and unbeknownst to you. The filter itself is constructed of your conceptual knowledge and social input. In this sense, the exact moment you interact with a piece of sense-datum it becomes a phenomenon because it has passed through your filter [your filter being different than everybody else's is what makes it subjective]. For example, the sense-data of Time passes through your filter, and interacts with your conceptual knowledge of Time, Space, Gravity and so forth - the characteristics of your filter [Kant called that Faculties] are then imputed to the sense-datum, making them subjective [but still very real].

In this sense, we do not say that thoughts, feelings, and perceptions are irrelevant, invalid, and untruthful, but quite the opposite; as I said, you are conflating noumena v., phenomena to real v., unreal, when that is not the case!

While this distinction has no bearing on day-to-day life - whether or not you are experiencing a thing-as-it-seems or a thing-in-itself, you are still encountering it - it was made to deconstruct the nature of Truth. I.e.,) All categorical statements are assumed false [unless trivial] because the only statements humans may unequivocally make are "I believe..." statements. Simply because all experience must be corporeal, does not make unreal or any less real than a noumena.

Obviously, though, such idealist conceptualizations have a few glaring issues; namely, one must ask, "If such a distinction between the knowable and unknowable exists, how did the Philosopher make that discrimination without having access to both sides?"

I see what you are saying. Essentially, everyone is working off limited information. One can't make a statement that is unlimited in nature when we're hindered by limited information.

I see that their may be truth in this. However, in many individuals, knowing this "truth" could be a crutch. Using philosophy as a backdrop to behavior, in my opinion, this "truth" encourages apathy.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I see what you are saying. Essentially, everyone is working off limited information. One can't make a statement that is unlimited in nature when we're hindered by limited information.

Somewhat, yes. Another way to think about it is this: In order to say "All Xs are a", you would need to fulfill one or more of three conditions; either by knowing all Xs sufficient enough to say that they have the quality a; by knowing the X [Universal form] which embodies all qualities of X such that one can make Universal distinctions about it; or by making a definitive statement such as the square statement discussed above [it is true by definition]. Since we can never fulfill the first two about any characteristic, all human statements are then "I believe..." statements tempered with doubt. Religion makes categorical statements, Agnosticism says you cannot, for the reasons I have just explained.

It is as if there is an 'A' and 'B' form of all objects in perception. 'A' being the noumena, or things 'as they are'; 'B' being the phenomena, or things 'as we see them'. This is not an inability or detriment [as you seem to be implying] but a function of the human condition.

I see that their may be truth in this. However, in many individuals, knowing this "truth" could be a crutch. Using philosophy as a backdrop to behavior, in my opinion, this "truth" encourages apathy.

I am unsure how this would encourage apathy in any way? In fact, I would say quite the opposite: Taking such a stance on the truth-value of statements causes one to challenge the authority of Universal statements on reality [i.e., Challenge Religion]. Maybe you could elaborate on what you meant, though.

 

[RobInKuwait]

I am unsure how this would encourage apathy in any way? In fact, I would say quite the opposite: Taking such a stance on the truth-value of statements causes one to challenge the authority of Universal statements on reality [i.e., Challenge Religion]. Maybe you could elaborate on what you meant, though.

Why challenge it though, if you can't ever make a conclusion. Its like trying writing a paper, knowing that you can never have a thesis. What's the point?

As for apathy, how can you have aspirations, goals, motivations, if you 'know' that you can't 'know' what you are doing is right or even in your best interest. Why do anything at that point? Maybe I'm taking this philosophy too literally....is this an example of "just words". I'd hate to even try to think about what the living embodiment of this philosophy is....nihilism?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Why challenge it though, if you can't ever make a conclusion. Its like trying writing a paper, knowing that you can never have a thesis. What's the point?

As for apathy, how can you have aspirations, goals, motivations, if you 'know' that you can't 'know' what you are doing is right or even in your best interest. Why do anything at that point? Maybe I'm taking this philosophy too literally....is this an example of "just words". I'd hate to even try to think about what the living embodiment of this philosophy is....nihilism?

Huh? You are incredibly off. Nihilism and Kant's noumena/phenomena could not have less to do with each other Philosophically, lol.

I am unsure where you are making the leap from the filter analogy, to this? As I said, it does not mean that your perceptions are unreal in any way.

I am searching for a way to describe this, though the filter and 'A' and 'B' forms appear to be adequate. Try considering those again.

Maybe this will work, though:

You have a box. A simple, plain, cardboard box. Now let's assume there is a noumenalogical form of the box - a form that would exist despite nobody being able to perceive it. Now, simply because you know what a 'box' is, both in shape and function; your eyes are in proper function and therefore you are seeing the box; your sense of touch is adequate and therefore you can feel the box, your experience of that box is subjective and therefore it is now a phenomenon.

In Philosophy, a phenomenon is simply the object of a person's perception; it is what the senses of the mind notice. So, unless you [or anybody else] has a supersensible way of experiencing things, all things are mediated through the senses - therefore, they are all phenomena. This does not make them unreal, or impart an inability to make conclusions about them.

So, Agnostics would say what I have just said above, and Theism counters that by making categorical statements about the noumenalogical form of the Universe.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Huh? You are incredibly off. Nihilism and Kant's noumena/phenomena could not have less to do with each other Philosophically, lol.

I am unsure where you are making the leap from the filter analogy, to this? As I said, it does not mean that your perceptions are unreal in any way.

I am searching for a way to describe this, though the filter and 'A' and 'B' forms appear to be adequate. Try considering those again.

Maybe this will work, though:

You have a box. A simple, plain, cardboard box. Now let's assume there is a noumenalogical form of the box - a form that would exist despite nobody being able to perceive it. Now, simply because you know what a 'box' is, both in shape and function; your eyes are in proper function and therefore you are seeing the box; your sense of touch is adequate and therefore you can feel the box, your experience of that box is subjective and therefore it is now a phenomenon.

In Philosophy, a phenomenon is simply the object of a person's perception; it is what the senses of the mind notice. So, unless you [or anybody else] has a supersensible way of experiencing things, all things are mediated through the senses - therefore, they are all phenomena. This does not make them unreal, or impart an inability to make conclusions about them.

So, Agnostics would say what I have just said above, and Theism counters that by making categorical statements about the noumenalogical form of the Universe.

Hows this for a metaphor:

Noumena: primary source document
Phenomenom: secondary source document

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Hows this for a metaphor:

Noumena: primary source document
Phenomenom: secondary source document

Ah, this is where you are making the mistake! They are the same thing [noumena and phenomena, that is]. As I said, you merely experiencing the 'thing' makes it a phenomenon.