Mill's Autobiography, Paragraph 27

Stone Island

Graduate Poster
Stone Island
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
1,003
John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, Paragraph 27

I was brought up from the first without any religious belief, in the ordinary acceptation of the term. My father, educated in the creed of Scotch presbyterianism, had by his own studies and reflections been early led to reject not only the belief in revelation, but the foundations of what is commonly called Natural Religion. I have heard him say, that the turning point of his mind on the subject was reading Butler’s Analogy. That work, of which he always continued to speak with respect, kept him, as he said, for some considerable time, a believer in the divine authority of Christianity; by proving to him, that whatever are the difficulties in believing that the Old and New Testaments proceed from, or record the acts of, a perfectly wise and good being, the same and still greater difficulties stand in the way of the belief, that a being of such a character can have been the Maker of the universe. He considered Butler’s argument as conclusive against the only opponents for whom it was intended. Those who admit an omnipotent as well as perfectly just and benevolent maker and ruler of such a world as this, can say little against Christianity but what can, with at least equal force, be retorted against themselves. Finding, therefore, no halting place in Deism, he remained in a state of perplexity, until, doubtless after many struggles, he yielded to the conviction, that, concerning the origin of things nothing whatever can be known. This is the only correct statement of his opinion; for dogmatic atheism he looked upon as absurd; as most of those, whom the world has considered Atheists, have always done.
Click to expand...


This was a blog post that I thought was very interesting and I hope that Keith Brugess-Jackson, who wrote the post, doesn't mind my copypasta.

Unless you have express permission from the author, you may not reproduce in full his work.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First, he thought theism in general, or Christianity in particular, is incoherent. Few contemporary atheistic philosophers believe this. What atheists say is that God could exist, but doesn’t. Second, he thought God and evil are logically incompatible. Almost no contemporary atheist believes this. What atheists say is that the existence of evil makes the existence of God improbable. Third, he thought Christianity is immoral. This is odd, because many contemporary utilitarians say that Christianity and utilitarianism are compatible. Indeed, there have been Christian utilitarians. Some atheists (Thomas Jefferson and R. M. Hare come to mind) think so highly of Christian morality that they endorse the morality but reject the supernatural parts. [emphasis added --MdC]
Click to expand...
Most people who use general quanitifers in their arguments do so because they lack actual evidence.
 
Religion is a personal thing. Lack of religion is also personal.

You can try to convince someone one way or another, you can take your own personal journey to shore up your belief or lack of...

But what it comes down to is being honest in you what you believe, and hopefully respecting others.

Ghandi once said if he ever met a real Xian he'd convert.

What looks good on paper often doesn't translate well into real life.
 
There are good reasons and bad reasons to be an atheist. It sounds as though Mill’s father had three bad reasons. First, he thought theism in general, or Christianity in particular, is incoherent. Few contemporary atheistic philosophers believe this. What atheists say is that God could exist, but doesn’t.
Click to expand...

A splitting of hairs. A god could exist, but not a simultaneously perfectly good (read: kind) and all-powerful god.

Which gets into the second point:

Second, he thought God and evil are logically incompatible. Almost no contemporary atheist believes this. What atheists say is that the existence of evil makes the existence of God improbable.
Click to expand...

A god vs. the god described above is the issue.

I can conceive of a god who is as the Christians claim, in that he does all these things that lead to the world as it is, while claiming He is Good and All-Powerful. That's distinct from actually being good and all-powerful.

If this universe is an experiment (or merely an exercise) gone wrong, God is ethically bound to stop things, long, long ago. If God "knew" everything that would happen, all the worse, since he would be ethically bound not to start it in the first place.

Claims otherwise by humans that there's some mysterious deep purpose are nothing but sophistry. A doubter may, rightly, demand evidence; there never is any.

Third, he thought Christianity is immoral. This is odd, because many contemporary utilitarians say that Christianity and utilitarianism are compatible. Indeed, there have been Christian utilitarians. Some atheists (Thomas Jefferson and R. M. Hare come to mind) think so highly of Christian morality that they endorse the morality but reject the supernatural parts. As for Christianity having a low moral standard, this is risible. Mill’s father must never have heard the expression, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” which appears many times in the New Testament (as well as twice in the Old Testament). No moral principle could be more demanding, at least if “neighbor” is interpreted as “stranger.” Whether any Christian has ever lived up to it is a separate question. Has any utilitarian, including Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, or Peter Singer, lived up to the principle of utility?
Click to expand...

I haven't read enough of that other link to know what are the details of what he meant by "Christian morality", so I don't know if the guy was rejecting the Golden Rule and/or some other subset of Christianity.

Ayn Rand did attack this directly, in that the principle that you should give until it hurts is immoral, and it is definitely immoral to demand your neighbor give, under penalty of jail. "The question is not, 'Should I or should I not give a beggar a dime?' The question is, 'Should I have to purchase my freedom, dime-by-dime?' "
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
Most people who use general quanitifers in their arguments do so because they lack actual evidence.
Click to expand...

Your presentation of an annotated bibliography of atheism literature demonstrating that Burgess-Jackson's take is unwarranted would be greatly appreciated. Philosophy, after all, is Professor Burgess-Jackson's field of expertise. Everything else equal, i.e., until some further demonstration on your or his part, I would be inclined to take his word regarding the state of the literature over yours.
 
Stone Island said:
Your presentation of an annotated bibliography of atheism literature demonstrating that Burgess-Jackson's take is unwarranted would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
Why? He named no sources. I made a joke you were too f:Dking stupid to get. Shall I source that?

Philosophy, after all, is Professor Burgess-Jackson's field of expertise. Everything else equal, i.e., until some further demonstration on your or his part, I would be inclined to take his word regarding the state of the literature over yours.
Click to expand...
That is wise, considering I wrote no words pertaining to the state of the literature.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
considering I wrote no words pertaining to the state of the literature.
Click to expand...

For a so-called critical thinker, master of pith, which Oxford English Dictionary defines as "the innermost or central part of a thing; the essential or vital part; the spirit or essence; the core, the nub", you seem to have a weak grasp of implication, "by what is implied though not formally expressed, by natural inference".

Evidence for Burgess-Jackson's claims would be satisfied by reference to the literature.
 
Stone Island said:
For a so-called critical thinker, master of pith, which Oxford English Dictionary defines as "the innermost or central part of a thing; the essential or vital part; the spirit or essence; the core, the nub", you seem to have a weak grasp of implication, "by what is implied though not formally expressed, by natural inference".
Click to expand...
For something made of stone, your head seems the proper thickness.
 
From the OP said:
Finding, therefore, no halting place in Deism, he remained in a state of perplexity, until, doubtless after many struggles, he yielded to the conviction, that, concerning the origin of things nothing whatever can be known.
Click to expand...


Good grief, and I thought I used too many commas. That blog post was a load of waffling that I really cannot see convincing anyone of anything.
 
Hokulele said:
Good grief, and I thought I used too many commas. That blog post was a load of waffling that I really cannot see convincing anyone of anything.
Click to expand...

That's John Stuart Mill you quoted, quite possibly the smartest man in his day and age, and that's the way they wrote, then. He taught his younger siblings Greek and Latin and himself mathematics all, I think, before the age of 10. You should go to Burgess-Jackson's site and start reading paragraphs of Mill's autobiography from the beginning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom