DiscussMormonism.com

This wildly stupid picture has been gaining traction on the ‘tubes…



(my brief discussion on why this photo is stupid)

Which leads me to think that the differences between the village atheism and true blue chapel Mormonism is that they only differ in content, but the uncritical methods are nearly identical.


Thoughts?

Hmm. I'm not sure the Nazi example is entirely apropos, for two reasons.

First, going off to war reflects not so much an acceptance of death as an acceptance of a risk of death. It makes sense to risk death if the payoff for survivors is big enough. We do this every day in countless little ways, for example by accepting the risk of death on the freeway in exchange for the convenience and economic benefit of rapid travel. By contrast, acceptance of certain death generally forecloses the possibility of a self-interested payoff.

Second, I'm not sure that those who fought for the Allies in World War II were dying so much for their beliefs as for the defense of their families and homes. I'm sure belief was part of it, but we must recall that in war there is also the possibility of real, material loss and suffering for those who fail to put up a sufficient fight.

All of which is to say that the "quote" makes some sense, when strictly interpreted. If someone held a gun to my head and told me to recant my beliefs or die, I'm fairly certain I would say whatever was necessary under those circumstances. I would never "die for my beliefs" in that sense.

To the quote/photo Stak I think that much more powerful ideas like nationalism and defense of family/homeland are fused with spiritual beliefs to bolster support for wars in order to get young men to go off and die.

CaliforniaKid wrote:First, going off to war reflects not so much an acceptance of death as an acceptance of a risk of death. It makes sense to risk death if the payoff for survivors is big enough. We do this every day in countless little ways, for example by accepting the risk of death on the freeway in exchange for the convenience and economic benefit of rapid travel. By contrast, acceptance of certain death generally forecloses the possibility of a self-interested payoff.

When S performs A and acknowledges the possible consequences C of A, it is an implicit acknowledgement that S is ready to accept C if needs be. Bertrand made it pretty clear that his dislike of Nazis contains an ideological component:

Autobiography wrote:I found the Nazis utterly revolting -- cruel, bigoted, and stupid. Morally and intellectually they were alike odious to me. Although I clung to my pacifist convictions, I did so with increasing difficulty. When, in 1940, England was threatened with invasion, I realized that, throughout the First War, I had never seriously envisaged the possibility of utter defeat. I found this possibility unbearable, and at last consciously and definitely decided that I must support what was necessary for victory in the Second War, however difficult victory might be to achieve, and however painful in its consequences.

Utter defeat did entail everyone’s death, it meant bowing to Nazi ideology. Bertrand was prepared to do that with the Kaiser, not the Furher. Cash this out in terms of Utilitarian calculus or any other normative ethics, the result is the same.

But the most important fact of all, Bertrand never published what appears next to his picture, it is totally without any sources. The reason is, Bertrand’s ethics in any phase would never have allowed for such a silly admission.

CaliforniaKid wrote:If someone held a gun to my head and told me to recant my beliefs or die, I'm fairly certain I would say whatever was necessary under those circumstances. I would never "die for my beliefs" in that sense.

The quote gives an important quantifier “Never”. Coming up with scenario where you would not die for your beliefs doesn’t relate to the idea that is being expressed, it is saying that there is never an conceivable scenario where one would choose death than recant beliefs.

Bond James Bond wrote:To the quote/photo Stak I think that much more powerful ideas like nationalism and defense of family/homeland are fused with spiritual beliefs to bolster support for wars in order to get young men to go off and die.

Okay, but Bertrand was neither a spiritual person, nor a nationalist. Nor was the issue purely preservation for England, so I'm lost at what you are getting at...

MrStakhanovite wrote:

Bond James Bond wrote:To the quote/photo Stak I think that much more powerful ideas like nationalism and defense of family/homeland are fused with spiritual beliefs to bolster support for wars in order to get young men to go off and die.

Okay, but Bertrand was neither a spiritual person, nor a nationalist. Nor was the issue purely preservation for England, so I'm lost at what you are getting at...

I'm not sure the point of the photo then since "beliefs" is such a vague word. Obviously there are individual beliefs that most people are willing to die for such as the belief that ones' children should be protected from harm. That's not the ideological belief you're probably imagining w/r/t to Christians dying during religious wars or whatever but most people under the belief defending their families seems to undermine the premise.

(I'm sure there are total pacifists out there that wouldn't die for anything.)

Bond James Bond wrote:I'm not sure the point of the photo then since "beliefs" is such a vague word.

In Bertrand's 'The Problems of Philosophy', belief is construed as someone's attitude towards the truth or falsity of a proposition (chapter 12), and that is the general definition in modern epistemology.

So take this proposition:

Mitt Romney will carry Minnesota in the general election.

You and I have a belief about this proposition. So what the picture is saying that Bertrand would always recant his belief about the truth of this proposition upon pain of death:

It is wrong, at every time and at every place to torture a human infant for the purposes of pure unnecessary pleasure

And he would recant this belief because, well, he might just be wrong about it.

I'm not sure what to say except that sometimes you think too much about things sometimes my friend.

Bond James Bond wrote:I'm not sure what to say except that sometimes you think too much about things sometimes my friend.

You son of a bitch....

I take this attitude as akin to your putting Ann Coulter on the same plane of ignorance and annoyance as Rachel Maddow. Village atheists types have problems, but your striking an above it all pose while equating them with conservative religious counterparts glosses over some significant differences in the degree of their failings.