Jiro comments on Rationality Quotes March 2014 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: malcolmocean 01 March 2014 03:34PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (326)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jiro 07 March 2014 03:34:13PM *  7 points [-]

Well, my first thought was Bertrand Russell being fired from CUNY, which was around 1940, although that was mostly because of his beliefs about sex (which are still directly related to his disbelief in religion). Religion classes in public schools were legal until 1948, and compulsory school prayer was legal until 1963. "In God We Trust" was declared the national motto of the US in 1956.

Comment author: Salemicus 09 March 2014 11:18:38PM -1 points [-]

So given that none of these are examples of people being persecuted for their materialism, can I take it that you agree?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 March 2014 04:46:17AM 0 points [-]

Like Salemicus said, no one of those things are persecutions. The closest of your examples is Bertrand Russell's firing, but even you admit that wasn't over his materialism.

By way of contrast there were in fact places in the developed world during the 1930's-1940's where one could be prosecuted for not being a materialist. And by prosecuted, I mean religious people were being semi-systematically arrested and/or executed (not necessarily in that order).

Comment author: Jiro 22 March 2014 02:08:46AM 0 points [-]

Saying "people in this time period are persecuted for their religion" implicitly limits it to Western democracies unless you specifically are talking about something else. It's like claiming that "in the 1980's, women weren't allowed to vote". That's literally true, because there are countries where in the 1980's (or even today) women could not vote, but it's not what most people would mean by saying such a thing.

Furthermore, the existence of laws implies persecution. If school prayer is compulsory, that means that people in schools are punished for not praying or have to pray against their will for fear of punishment. That's what "compulsory" means.

(Besides, if you're going to interpret it that way. I could point out that in countries like Saudi Arabia, people could be killed for not believing in God, and that this wasn't any better in the 1930's in most of those countries.)

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 22 March 2014 02:48:34AM *  -1 points [-]

Saying "people in this time period are persecuted for their religion" implicitly limits it to Western democracies unless you specifically are talking about something else.

Spain was certainly a democracy at the time this prosecutions were happening, granted it was engaged in a civil war, but it was the democratic side whose partisans were doing the prosecution. Furthermore, "Western democracies" wasn't a stable category during the period in question, so it was perfectly reasonable for a religious person living in a western democracy to worry that his country would stop being democratic shortly.

Furthermore, the existence of laws implies persecution. If school prayer is compulsory, that means that people in schools are punished for not praying or have to pray against their will for fear of punishment.

So can you cite an example of someone being imprisoned or executed for refusing to engage in school prayer?

Comment author: Jiro 22 March 2014 05:18:14AM *  -1 points [-]

I didn't say people were imprisoned or executed; I used it as an example of persecution. It certainly was that. You may think that persecution only means being imprisoned or executed, but I don't agree with that.

Comment author: DanArmak 09 March 2014 11:50:56AM 0 points [-]

Lewis' point of reference is the UK, not the US. I don't know how much that changes the picture.

Comment author: Jiro 09 March 2014 04:10:19PM 0 points [-]

I think the US counts as part of "the developed world", however.

Comment author: Larks 16 March 2014 02:48:32PM -2 points [-]

Bertrand Russell wasn't a materialist; he believed in Universals. I think you are confusing "materialist" with "people I agree with".

Comment author: Protagoras 16 March 2014 03:42:11PM 3 points [-]

If accepting universals made one not a materialist, that would rule out some of the great Australian materialists, such as David Armstrong. Thus, that would clearly be a non-standard use of the label "materialist." Perhaps there are details of Russell's account of universals which are not shared by Armstrong's which make it anti-materialist, but you don't specify any. I know that Russell's views changed over the years, which of course complicates things, but he certainly didn't believe in spooky souls, and most of the doctrines of his I can think of which seem to be in possible tension with materialism are either susceptible to varying interpretations or matters he changed his mind on at different points or both.